• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Denmark: PACE discussed in Videnskab.dk

Kalliope

Senior Member
Messages
367
Location
Norway
Videnskab.dk writes about news on science for general public.

Today there's an article on the PACE-trial, including criticism from the Norwegian professor and paediatrician Kristian Sommerfelt and defence from Andreas Schröder - from the Research Clinic for bodily distress syndrome at Aarhus, Denmark.

Original article
Google translation

Summary:
Danish treating chronic fatigue gets criticism from abroad

- No studies have provided convincing evidence that graduated rehabilitation and cognitive therapy has an effect on ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome; ed)," said among other Kristian Sommerfelt, a professor at the Clinical Institute 2 at the University of Bergen, Norway.

- But the Department for Functional Disorders, Aarhus University Hospital, which is one of the places that offer graduated rehabilitation for chronic fatigue syndrome, rejects the criticism.

Some patients with chronic fatigue syndrome have the benefit of gradual rehabilitation, shows more research. But scientists disagree on the validity of the results.

Gradual rehabilitation is an evidence-based treatment that has a positive effect on many patients, says Andreas Schröder, who is a clinical associate professor and chief physician at the clinic.

Andreas Schröder from Research Clinic for Functional Disorders maintains, however, that the PACE study conclusions are valid.

"The debate about the program has been running for years and is led by some very dedicated ME-patient associations. I've heard the criticism, but I still have confidence in the study's conclusions. It is peer-reviewed research, published in The Lancet, one of the finest magazines, "says associate professor continues:

"Of course, the PACE study shortcomings, but for me to see, it is still the best that is made in this area."
 

Molly98

Senior Member
Messages
576
And that wouldn't be because his career and position of influence depends on this theory then? ( Andreas Schrader that is)

Ha ha, reminds me a bit of my daughter when she was 10 finding out Father Christmas was not real, she was deverstated and cried her eyes out, then and hour or so later she came down stairs and said, " mummy, I know he is not real but I am going to pretend you have not told me and still believe he is because it's better that way I can still get presents for Christmas".

It must be hard to acknowledge the evidence pilling up to expose your faulty beliefs when you have gained so much and built whole careers and in some cases empires around them. Secondary gains and all that.
 

Kalliope

Senior Member
Messages
367
Location
Norway
It is possible to leave comments under the article, on Facebook and twitter

Have too much brain fog at the moment to do it myself, but sure would like to see this statement addressed:

from the article:
Andreas Schröder fears that gets spread unsubstantiated criticism and misinformation about the graduated rehabilitation. If the criticism is well documented, it should be published in a scientific journal, he points out:

"Why is fed criticism on a blog and not in a recognized scientific journal as a so-called 'Letter to the editor'? How many of those who have signed this letter are real experts in chronic fatigue syndrome ?, "he asks rhetorically, and stresses:
"It can have serious consequences for patients if they are due to misinformation lose confidence in the care they are offered."
 
Last edited:

Solstice

Senior Member
Messages
641
And that wouldn't be because his career and position of influence depends on this theory then? ( Andreas Schrader that is)

That seems to be the common denominator between these sorts of articles. On the one hand you have an independent scientist that sees the trial for the piece of crap it is, on the other hand you have someone whose career depends on the trial being taken serious to defend it as if his livelyhood were at stake.

I'm betting if this uproar ever reaches the Netherlands we have comments from Knoop, v.d. Meer, Bleijenberg and the likes to look forward too.
 
Last edited: