(I am sure you can excuse the errors. I don't think I received any reply.)
Dear AfME,
I am just skim-read your article about the PACE study on page 4 of the Spring issue of InterAction, and hope that your scientists will be producing a detailed critique of the study.
A very quick look at the main study paper reveals a number of areas which merit question. For example, an overwhelming proportion of people initially approached to participate were excluded, and the expectations of those who did participate appear highly atypical, but concur closely with outcomes. The study sample may have been an overly self-selected sub-group. It is likely, for example, to have excluded people who have previously tried GET and experienced adverse effects, as in your own studies.
Unfortunately I cannot spare the time to analyse the study thoroughly myself without remuneration, being a sufferer myself who is struggling to make ends meet and suffers severe adverse effects from over-exertion.
Regards,
Dear AfME,
I am just skim-read your article about the PACE study on page 4 of the Spring issue of InterAction, and hope that your scientists will be producing a detailed critique of the study.
A very quick look at the main study paper reveals a number of areas which merit question. For example, an overwhelming proportion of people initially approached to participate were excluded, and the expectations of those who did participate appear highly atypical, but concur closely with outcomes. The study sample may have been an overly self-selected sub-group. It is likely, for example, to have excluded people who have previously tried GET and experienced adverse effects, as in your own studies.
Unfortunately I cannot spare the time to analyse the study thoroughly myself without remuneration, being a sufferer myself who is struggling to make ends meet and suffers severe adverse effects from over-exertion.
Regards,
