Science Magazine covers Tuller's PACE analysis!

[searcher]

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2015/10/criticism-mounts-long-controversial-chronic-fatigue-study

The authors of a controversial 2011 trial that showed that exercise and behavioral theory could help treat chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) today released a follow-up study that supports their original findings. But the new report comes on the heels of a lengthy and highly critical examination of the original trial by a journalist.

I hope that this is just the start of critical coverage of the PACE trial and the new studies. I wish it went into more detail on the concerns with the study but at least it acknowledged that there are many issues.

 

[WillowJ]

Jon Cohen has written a short, very readable piece. Well done, him.

I recognize his name from somewhere.

 

[barbc56]

Looks like there are two threads on this.

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ng-controversial-chronic-fatigue-study.40819/

@Kina @Sushi Should these threads be merged?

Barb

 

[Bob]

Incorrect:

The authors of a controversial 2011 trial that showed that exercise and behavioral theory could help treat chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) today released a follow-up study that supports their original findings.

Misleading:

It concludes that the benefits of the interventions were maintained.

Misleading:

After analyzing the responses, the researchers concluded that the benefits reported in the original study, which assessed participants at 1 year, were maintained for at least another 1.5 years.

Unhelpful and nasty propaganda:

“It’s sometimes quite hard to understand what motivates the very vocal minority that gets so upset about this apparently benign bit of moderately helpful treatment,” he said.

I'm really disappointed by this article. I think it's unhelpful and misleading. It promotes the propaganda.

 

[searcher]

I genuinely think Jon quoted him at the end because it's in stark contrast to all the criticism. His statement is obviously absurd when there are esteemed researchers pointing out how bad the study is. There's a reason Jon quoted the researchers from David's piece earlier in the article. I wish he had come out against the study altogether, but overall I think most reasonable readers would read this piece and understand that there are problems with the trial and subsequent publications that need investigation.

 

[Esther12]

I think it's a fair piece from someone who hasn't had time to really look in to all the details.

Lets people know their are two points of view, doesn't imply one side are dangerous anti-psychiatry terrorists. Sounds like a big improvement tbh.

 

[user9876]

I genuinely think Jon quoted him at the end because it's in stark contrast to all the criticism. His statement is obviously absurd when there are esteemed researchers pointing out how bad the study is. There's a reason Jon quoted the researchers from David's piece earlier in the article. I wish he had come out against the study altogether, but overall I think most reasonable readers would read this piece and understand that there are problems with the trial and subsequent publications that need investigation.

That was my impression. I don't think he has dug into the details of the PACE latest release but its hard to do that and get something out on time considering they only released the paper at midnight. There is a lot of context needed to read behind the lines of the PACE trial (basically don't read what they say just look at the data and understand its form).

Its good that Tuller's article is getting more coverage.

 

[Bob]

Hmm.. I'll read it again and look for some positives... But I find it annoying that any article would say that CBT/GET were shown to be helpful in the follow up study when that's simply just misinformation that could be checked out very easily. It took me about a minute to find out that CBT/GET weren't effective at follow up. What's the point in reporting science if you can't get the simple fundamental basics of a medical trial correct? The article reports that the interventions were effective at follow up, but they were ineffective.

 

[Yogi]

Incorrect:

I'm really disappointed by this article. I think it's mainly unhelpful and misleading trash. It promotes the propaganda.

Really? I thought it was very good. It challenges the PACE trial whilst giving both sides coverage. Remember this is the first mainstream media article to cover Tullers investigation of last week. Sharpe comes across as a bit mental with the last quote. The other articles today from British media are all trash and propaganda - this is not. We need to get Jon Cohen to follow this up and cover this in more detail in his future articles. He seems to be a good open minded journalist and from Science magazine nonetheless! Thank god for the Americans challenging the propaganda.

 

[Yogi]

The PACE PI's have been spinning their results to the media before the embargo last night and they once again are ultimately responsible for any inaccuracies. It is difficult to report on Sharpe et al given their double speak.

 

[searcher]

Honestly @Bob I also didn't like it the first time I read it but it seemed much better the second time. He first states what the researchers claim in their paper, then points out what the actual data says:

After analyzing the responses, the researchers concluded that the benefits reported in the original study, which assessed participants at 1 year, were maintained for at least another 1.5 years. But the participants randomized to receive the two interventions that initially did nothing also improved, and there “was little evidence of differences in outcomes” when compared with the people in the other treatment groups. The authors suggest that this is because the people in the ineffective groups later decided to seek out graded exercise and cognitive behavior therapy.

The authors' suggestion is obviously a shot in the dark to obfuscate the fact that all four arms did the same.

 

[Bob]

I've read it again, and can see what you're all saying. There definitely is balance compared to what we're used to reading in mainstream media articles. But, nonetheless, there are important basic factual errors which are very grating.

 

[Sidereal]

Disappointing article overall though I am glad to see Tuller's work being mentioned in the mainstream media.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I think it is a very fair piece from someone who is not to know the detailed arguments. I certainly get the impression that the message between the lines is that something does not add up with PACE. I also think that the last quote from Sharpe is intended to look pretty silly. I think the real meaning is 'Science has noticed that people are unhappy with PACE but we are going to let people decide for themselves rather than take sides without the necessary inside knowledge'. They could do more, but this is just a news flag as I see it.

 

[Sean]

At the press conference, Sharpe... ...stressed that their findings are not suggesting that CFS/ME is a mental illness.

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2015/10/criticism-mounts-long-controversial-chronic-fatigue-study

Might be a bit late in the race to be trying to shut the gate on that horse, mate.