Invisible Illness Awareness Week 2016: Our Voices Need to Be Heard
Never heard of Invisible Illness Awareness Week? You're not alone. Jody Smith sheds a little light to make it more visible
Discuss the article on the Forums.

QMUL v IC + Matthees (PACE Trial) Part 2: Documents, Open Justice and Open Data -Valerie Eliot Smith

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Dolphin, May 16, 2016.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Looks like QMUL went strong on the 'dangerous-evil-patients' line.

    The British judiciary don't have a great reputation for scepticism of unfounded claims coming from those in authority. That, combined with the strange going-ons on reporting from the tribunal, give me a bad feeling about this. If this decision goes the wrong way it could mean a few more years of fighting to get the truth out.
  3. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    If CBT and GET were even the least bit effective, wouldn't it make sense that the PACE trial would have some small cohort of patients (not just a patient here or there who temporarily convinced themselves to do more and who eventually paid the price for doing so) stepping up to defend the PACE findings?

    Wouldn't you think that the authors might be able to find a small group of patients who would be willing to step up and describe the nature of what they suffered from and defend the treatment that changed their lives?

    I know that I'd feel as though I'd betrayed Dr. Montoya and my endocrinologists if I stood aside while they were being accused of manipulating data. My doctors stood up to significant pressure from various corners to not treat me as they saw fit. It would be dishonest of me to not testify to the significant and sustained improvement I've enjoyed because of the creativity and strong character of my present team of doctors.

    Where is this same group of people, patients who owe significant improvements in their health to the PACE trial doctors, and who have benefited from CBT and GET? Why does it seem that the only people defending the PACE trial are the authors and the university administrators and the Lancet editors who have their reputations (not their lives) on the line?

    All I see in their defense of withholding the PACE trial data are claims of threats (not even the specific threats - only the implied " go to hell") in response to the significant damage their recommendations - based upon manipulated data? - have caused for many patients.
    Justin30, Roy S, John Mac and 7 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page