• 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 (FM), 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.

Neuroskeptic: Open Data and CFS/ME – A PACE Odyssey Part 1

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
My impression is that he realised he wasn't sufficentily well informed to offer the defence he wanted to, so backed out. Maybe he could put it down to patients being too hostile? All the criticism I saw was pretty reasonable though.

It may be he realized that his analysis was poor given the comments and hence didn't continue. I assume he was encouraged to write something backing PACE.
 

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
My impression is that he realised he wasn't sufficentily well informed to offer the defence he wanted to, so backed out. Maybe he could put it down to patients being too hostile? All the criticism I saw was pretty reasonable though.

All the commenters and comments were very well informed and put their well reasoned responses to NS and his terrible attempt to tear down Julie's Stat article. He was prevented from doing what he wanted to do or was asked to do by the pace authors. I bet wessely was behind this.

Even NS knew from that point that the patient skeptics were right and then backed out of his part 2. He probably doesn't want his skeptical reputation (90k Twitter followers) tarnished by association with PACE. That is not a true skeptic. He should not have allegiance to anyone but the evidence.

He needs to follow through with part 2 if he is a real skeptic?
Anyone want to nudge him on Twitter?

P.s Who is neuroskeptic - what is his identity outside what we know if him being a UK researcher?
 
Messages
13,774
It may be he realized that his analysis was poor given the comments and hence didn't continue. I assume he was encouraged to write something backing PACE.

He is mates with the Goldacre/Wessely crew, but I wouldn't assume that they put him up to anything.

I think that he's part of a group that share values I consider rather disrepuatable, and according to their values, PACE is not a particularly bad piece of work. It didn't fabircate data. It was relatively large. It (roughly) followed most of the key guidelines on how research should be conducted, and while it deviated from its protocol there was still a significant difference for their pre-specified primary outcome, and claims about recovery are a relatively minor secondary finding. The Lancet paper (compared to the promoting in the press) was relatively cautiously phrased.

He acknowledges that PACE cannot show CBT/GET are any more effective than placebo, or that the changes in questionnare scores represent any real improvement in health, but that doesn't particularly concern him. I think that he's much more concerned about the way science operates according to the standards set by researchers for themselves, rather than whether patients are being provided with accurate information about the efficacy of the treatments available to them.

In a lot of his blogs there is a lack of moral concern about the impact of poor science. I had thought that this was him playing the game, and being restrained in order to prevent people from dismissing his criticisms as too extreme or emotional, but some things I read from him makes me think that he just isn't outraged by the low standards many researchers set themselves, and he's said that in his day-job he himself does some of the questionable things he complains about in his blogs. Maybe this was him attempting to be disarmingly self-depreciating, but I think it could well be that he just doesn't see poor science as immoral in the way that many patients do.

PS: None of that is to ay that personal connections, a desire to avoid pissing off powerful instituations, etc, don't also play a role.

PPS: Also, his blog wasn't pure hatchett job. He could have been much more brutal in response to Julie if he'd wanted, and in a lot of ways it seemed that, as well as not being terribly concerned about the moral issue of patients being misled, it was a bit lazy. I got the impression he'd really focussed on the data Matthees had secured, and hadn't taken the time to look at a lot of the wider issues with PACE.
 
Last edited:

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Seems to be the kind of skeptic that likes to point and laugh at silly little homeopathy studies, but gets cold feet when confronted with bad science whose authors can and will fight back.
Like Ben Goldacre, he is a big brave tough man when going after easy targets, like homeopathy. But not so courageous when it comes to much more serious problems at the core of establishment medicine.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
He is mates with the Goldacre/Wessely crew, but I wouldn't assume that they put him up to anything.

I think that he's part of a group that share values I consider rather disrepuatable, and according to their values, PACE is not a particularly bad piece of work. It didn't fabircate data. It was relatively large. It (roughly) followed most of the key guidelines on how research should be conducted, and while it deviated from its protocol there was still a significant difference for their pre-specified primary outcome, and claims about recovery are a relatively minor secondary finding. The Lancet paper (compared to the promoting in the press) was relatively cautiously phrased.
.

To me something that roughly follows procedure and tries to mislead people especially when it comes from the heart of the medical establishment should be a really big issue. It is easy to attack the fringes but it just chops them off. Doing so doesn't raise the standard of everything it just pushes a few things out. They claim science is self fixing it is not if those involved do not improve the standards. T
 
Messages
13,774
To me something that roughly follows procedure and tries to mislead people especially when it comes from the heart of the medical establishment should be a really big issue. It is easy to attack the fringes but it just chops them off. Doing so doesn't raise the standard of everything it just pushes a few things out. They claim science is self fixing it is not if those involved do not improve the standards. T

Yes - absolutely. But I get the impression that a lot of those within the research community care more about being 'fair' to researchers who were not clearly breaking any rules, than about the harm being done by poor quality research. It seems like, at least in the UK, the research community can get away with self-interested standards for what is acceptable as outsiders tend to be so respecful of, and intimidated by, 'science'.

Like Ben Goldacre, he is a big brave tough man when going after easy targets, like homeopathy. But not so courageous when it comes to much more serious problems at the core of establishment medicine.

I think that he did call out establishment BS on, eg, the wisdom of churning out lots of underpowered MR?I studies, etc. Maybe the arguments have now largely been won in that area though?
 
Last edited:
Messages
43

Has anybody watch this film?
I really think there is a paralelism between it and the history of our illness.
I think we are in the way and really close to find ,at least, a treatment ( meanwile finding the cure ;) )
I also really believe psychiatric wiew , theories and treatment will be a bad nigthmare 4 all of us in a very close future.
Then It will be our the time to anounce to authorities, the mass media and the enterely worl, how negligent have been with us psychiatric and pharmatheutical lobbies because their hunger of power and money.

Really discusting but real as we see.

Lots of kisses to all fatigue mates ;)
 
Messages
43
Sorry. I forgot the film!!
latest
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Yogi:
It appears that Neuroskeptic was trying to criticise and shoot down Julie's work - a hatchet job on her. At the same time defending and advocating for the the PACE authors.

However he didn't expect a fierce defence from Julie and Jo Edwards and the other 133 commenters.

Not much of a skeptic.

Where is Part 2?? It has now been 5 months!!



My impression is that he realised he wasn't sufficentily well informed to offer the defence he wanted to, so backed out. Maybe he could put it down to patients being too hostile? All the criticism I saw was pretty reasonable though.

He just didn't have enough motivation or faith in his beliefs.