http://www.theguardian.com/society/...cise-oxford-university-study-exercise-cbt-cfs
Not fantastic (they do not dig deep to explain in which way the PACE trial is flawed), but certainly better than the DM and the Telegraph.
Surprisingly good for the Graun though.
Anyway, I heard the phone-ins on BBC 5 Live and Radio 2 and a miserable time was had by all. First up was Sharpe on 5. I've never heard his voice before (and indeed only caught the end of him) and was struck by how he managed to sound both oily and gravelly at the same, like a malevolent daemon transmitting thoughts into sound from across the great divide. He seemed to be on reasonably emolient form, making the point that his treatment wouldn't work for all (although that it would injure the ones it didn't help went unmentioned).
The patients themselves were of a type (used to be more ill, a bit better now) and noticeably didn't ask awkward questions. I suspect that they were screened beforehand. The worst anyone said was that GET probably worked for some but it didn't help them. I was dying for someone to point out that no-one was any better than those who recieved SMC but it wasn't to be. Host Peter Allen was very sympathetic and made the good point that people under the CFS umbrella were liable to have all sorts of stuff, but as far as I heard didn't put Sharpe under any pressure at all.
Vanessa Feltz on Radio 2 was a touch better. Up against a Dr. Mike Smith (?), she did at least put the idea that it was cruel to push patients through exercises that made them worse but he was having none of it, talking up the great "expertise" of the therapists (as if they aren't just psychiatric nurses armed with a handbook and a nice line in teeth-sucking) and making damn sure we don't fall into self destructive patterns or some such.
The phone-in and emails were a least a bit feisty. There was at least one stress related fatigue patient who found GET helped, but others made the point that the Telegraph and Mail stories were bollocks, that PACE included CF patients and not the severely affected and one did point out the WHO code (though this was really a bit fiddly for a two minute radio spot). Once again, no one pointed out the elephant in the room, that people on SMC were no worse than CBT and GET.
Another problem was that people who did improve talked about increasing activity gradually, giving credence to the treatment. At some point someone really should have pointed out that there is a difference between doing this at your own pace and being pushed into things you can't do with the guilt and shame of bringing your illness upon yourself hanging over your head. The experience of GET was sorely lacking.
Anyway, is this the last of the trolls lurking under the PACE bridge? I'm sure it's been lost on no one that the way these results have been dribbled out, diarrhoea-like from the chafed anus of pseudo-science, has probably led to the public thinking there are several trials backing each other up, where in fact there is simply a growing mound of runny shite, all from the same source. Every six to twelve months we get another stinking bout, all of it tainted with the same bullshit protocol. I seem to remember how everyone stressed how important it was not to get carried away over one trial with Hornig and Lipkin, whilst with PACE one big RCT here is apparently proof positive of everything. Perhaps we should be gratetful lest they do it all again.