JHP Editorial: Special Issue on the PACE Trial

[Cheesus]

Abstract
We are proud that this issue marks a special contribution by the Journal of Health Psychology to the literature concerning interventions to manage adaptation to chronic health problems. The PACE Trial debate reveals deeply embedded differences between critics and investigators. It reveals an unwillingness of the co-principal investigators of the PACE trial to engage in authentic discussion and debate. It leads one to question the wisdom of such a large investment from the public purse (£5million) on what is a textbook example of a poorly done trial.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317722370

I was going to quote the best bits to share, but it is fairly short and is all so good that I recommend you just read it.

And the index of the special issue, which I believe we are all well familiar with at this stage: http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/hpqa/current

 

[Sean]

I think is a more long term link:

http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/hpqa/22/9

 

[adreno]

It looks impressive. Good job, everyone. Now let's hope anyone in power actually cares enough about the science to read it.

 

[Dolphin]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892057414719111169

 

[Barry53]

Just re-read @Keith Geraghty 's PACE-Gate editorial, with a bit more understanding under my belt than originally. It really is very good, and set the stage well for the other publications which followed.

 

[Dolphin]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892134531058343936

 

[Barry53]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892134531058343936

I think he maybe deserves a complementary copy of the JHP special edition . Without his courageous efforts it, and all that underpins it, could never have happened.

 

[Dolphin]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892134531058343936

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892141704454828032

 

[andrew p]

The Times has picked up on the dissension behind the scenes at the JHP over this issue.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...j?shareToken=2b004df0f2db4a8278504746c5606a63

 

[snowathlete]

The Times has picked up on the dissension behind the scenes at the JHP over this issue.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...j?shareToken=2b004df0f2db4a8278504746c5606a63

Well that was fun.

 

[Sidereal]

Jesus.

 

[Dolphin]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892182521135366147

 

[Dolphin]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892188410642825217

 

[Esther12]

That's a strong editorial. Fair to say he has been converted to the anti-PACE side.

Personally, I'd have liked to see some more low quality pro-PACE pieces in there, just to balance things out.

 

[cigana]

“The many wrongs committed by psychiatry and medicine to the ME/CFS community can only be righted when the Pace trial is ultimately seen for what it is: a disgraceful confidence trick to reduce patient compensation payments and benefits.”

Saying it like it is. Thank you David Marks.

 

[IreneF]

This is rather telling:

"Before submitting their reply, Professors Peter White, Trudie Chalder and Michael Sharpe wrote to me as co-principal investigators of the PACE trial to seek a retraction of sections of Geraghty’s paper, a declaration of conflicts of interest (COI) by Keith Geraghty on the grounds that he suffers from ME/CFS, and publication of their response without peer review (White et al., 4 November 2016, email to David F Marks)."​

Usually, you'd expect a person who suffers from a disease to support a research trial, but in this case it's a conflict of interest.

 

[Barry53]

That's a strong editorial. Fair to say he has been converted to the anti-PACE side.

Personally, I'd have liked to see some more low quality pro-PACE pieces in there, just to balance things out.

In that regard at least, the PACE authors have maybe realised the importance of stopping digging, given the deep hole they have already dug for themselves.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Times article provides some interesting detail, and at least it does not take sides.

I was surprised to hear that Davey Smith was on the board of a psychology journal. What was he doing there? Presumably in the past he was seen as a chap with strong opinions he was not afraid to share and maybe a reputation for sweeping out the cobwebs of the establishment. But I can see that he had found himself in a very uncomfortable position being on the board of a journal producing an issue likely to incense all the people he was hoping would provide millions of pounds for the MEGA project with Esther Crawley.

What is so shocking about this is, as David Marks has said, the contempt for patients. Personal interest sweeps away any consideration of truth that might be relevant to the well being of ill people. Davey Smith must have the intelligence to see that the PACE design fails at the first fence, but he prefers not to.

 

[Sean]

"...a disgraceful confidence trick to reduce patient compensation payments and benefits."

Plus just a personal empire-building indulgence for some academic psychiatrists.

PACE is regarded as too big to fail. Far too much money, and far too many egos, careers, and empires depend on it not failing. Or at least, not being seen to fail.

 

[lilpink]

What is so shocking about this is, as David Marks has said, the contempt for patients. Personal interest sweeps away any consideration of truth that might be relevant to the well being of ill people. Davey Smith must have the intelligence to see that the PACE design fails at the first fence, but he prefers not to

This needs repeating. Especially for the benefit of those patient charities which still persist in being part of the CMRC.