I don't think it's worth speculating too much, and tbh, don't see how PACE could have led to the IOM unless it and patient's response to it led to some people realising patients were getting screwed.
I certainly do think that the Lancet should explain their claim.
I am not claiming the PACE trial paved or led the way for the IOM, my post clearly is talking about why the claim was made that it did. We are being told there were "behind the scenes discussions" and I am trying to establish if that is the case, what was the purpose and to what extent the people involved in PACE would try to influence the IOM. The people behind the PACE trial have had massive government backing for years thats obvious and evident in the fact that the DWP helped to fund PACE. I just dont think its credible that the Wessely crowd wouldn't try to influence the IOM even by means of deception and spin etc.
They have been doing such things for decades and they have certain levels of success at it and affecting outcomes.
I don't think it's worth speculating too much,
Don't speculate about it then.
I certainly do think that the Lancet should explain their claim
The problem is without speculating how does one draw up a criteria to pose the question over the claim because any answer they offer you back would potentially just have to be excepted at face value wouldn't it?
Bob said:
You should read the IOM report. It's far from wishy washy. It's a heavy-weight validation of the biomedical nature of the illness.
I have read it, its wishy washy....
Why is there deafening silence form the IOM over the PACE trial and why do they include CBT and GET as being somewhat credible in their report. Why have the IOM attempted to drop the name ME in favour of SEID. Its utterly pointless to confuse the issue by using ME CFS and SEID. From fatigue to "Exertion Intolerance" is an obvious PR disaster for us. Even if the D does stand for disease and we have already seen it misreported a number of times as standing for Disorder.
How about the homoeopathy remarks in the IOM report is that heavy-weight validation of the biomedical nature of the illness.
**************************************************
One crucial reason we need to press the Lancet on their claims of PACE and behind the scenes discussion paving the way for the IOM report is because its their claim alone.
Do we have the Lancet or either Wessely and co on the back foot here as far this goes simply because there is a very senior person claiming behind the scenes discussion happened (presumably from people involved in PACE) and lead to the IOM or...the how IOM reported pr how the PACE people wanted them to report. By this I am not making any assertions that the SMC/PACE crowd did or didnt get their way in the IOM report to any extent thats a separate issue.
If Wessely and co claim there was no such discussion and cant explain how said discussions lead to the IOM or how the IOM where briefed by ...SMC?/the PACE school then we have proof that the Lancet claim is a delusion don't we?
If we are to address the people involved in the PACE trial the obvious question would be "what kind of briefing did you offer up to the IOM in the behind the scenes discussions talked about by the Lancet editor?"
Also why would "they" (whoever they are) have to partake in said discussions behind the scenes and off the record?