• 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.

The PACE trial [pro]: It’s time to broaden perceptions and move on. Keith Petrie, John Weinman

Messages
60
Wow, how bad is that commentary? With enemies like that, who needs allies? I strongly suspect that Petrie and Weinman may be fellow activists (probably borderline psychopaths) working undercover. Having infiltrated the BPS cult they are now trying to undermine it by making absolute tits of themselves while appearing to try to defend PACE. Unfortunately they are making it too obvious. If anyone has a contact, please get a message to them to raise the intelligence of their arguments before their cover is blown.
 
Messages
60
"The reactions to a trial that identified helpful treatments for a chronic and severely disabling condition contrast markedly with other physical illnesses and highlight the suspicion of patients with CFS towards any psychological interventions for CFS. In our experience as health psychologists, patients with other illnesses such as cancer, renal isease, heart disease or chronic respiratory problems are usually very keen to adopt psychological interventions that can reduce fatigue, improve functioning and well-being. Indeed for these disorders a common complaint is that psychological support and interventions are not readily available."

I'm confused, are they acknowledging that ME/CFS is a physical disease just like cancer, or are they saying that all diseases are "bio-psychosocial" and can be cured by talking at patients and forcing them to do GET?

What I hope we can all agree on is that cancer, renal and heart disease patients are just desperate to be told that their symptoms are imaginary and due to false beliefs, and that the best treatment option is to do whatever makes their symptoms worse over and over again. Cancer patients around the world are calling for funds to be diverted from biomedical research and treatments to clinical trials of CBT, GET and the Lightning Process as a matter of urgency.


The use of exercise when someone feels fatigued is counterintuitive to the common sense model of CFS.

Errr, it's contrary to the definition of ME/CFS. If excercise makes you better, you don't have ME/CFS. The use of exercise for someone who is diagnosed with ME/CFS is contrary to reason.
 

Forbin

Senior Member
Messages
966
The unfortunate outcome of the continued controversy about the PACE trial and intimidation of researchers in the CFS field has increased the likelihood of deterring quality researchers from working in the area.


Somehow, this reminds me of the old joke told by Woody Allen at the start of "Annie Hall."
Two elderly women are at a Catskill Mountains' resort and one of them says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible."

The other one says, "Yeah, I know. And such small portions."
 
Last edited:

Jill

Senior Member
Messages
209
Location
Auckland, NZ
I need to read all the comments , but before I forgot I thought I'd let you know Keith Petri was Rona mossmorris's supervisor . I reckon Rona has put him up to this . She got her masters and phd by studying ME patients on a list from the Auckland support group ( totally self selected ). She ain't even a dr!. I went to her year end speech and asked qs about the methodology but I was 'shut up'.
Can't see my ph ( eyesight probs) and cyclone starting !!
But seriously this isn't science this is scratching backs BULL
 
Messages
3,263
Let's be fair, there are lots of Psychiatrists and Psychologists who now get what we're saying. There's just those few BPS acolytes who continue to dig their heels in, and try to put it all back on the patients' psychopathology.

Dare I say, they represent "a fairly small, but highly organised, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have…hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients
 
Messages
3,263
What I hope we can all agree on is that cancer, renal and heart disease patients are just desperate to be told that their symptoms are imaginary and due to false beliefs, and that the best treatment option is to do whatever makes their symptoms worse over and over again. Cancer patients around the world are calling for funds to be diverted from biomedical research and treatments to clinical trials of CBT, GET and the Lightning Process as a matter of urgency.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:!
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
"The continued debate on the PACE trial seems to miss the fact that science is incremental."

Oh, dear. It's too good an opportunity to miss.

The continued debate on the PACE trial seems to miss the "fact" that too much of the "science" on the subject is excremental.
 
Last edited:

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Are the CBT/GET proponents members of a secret cult that believes psychotherapy can influence physiology and cure illness? and that they will demonstrate this to the world, starting with CFS?

(I'm trying to make sense of their behaviour)
 
Messages
3,263
Are the CBT/GET proponents members of a secret cult that believes psychotherapy can influence physiology and cure illness? and that they will demonstrate this to the world, starting with CFS?
Yes, I think that's it. I think they would be claiming the same of all illnesses if they could get away with it. If it weren't for the fact that the evidence so blatantly contradicts them in so many instances - people would notice and say "hey, that's crazy!" CFS is their jewel in the crown, because so far, the evidence contradicting their explanation can be ignored so nobody notices its crazy.

I'm sure of this, because these are the same people who endorse talking therapy treatments as a way to slow your cancer.

Plus, CFS gives twice because if patients don't like what you're saying, they can be dismissed as nutters (because you've framed it as a psychological problem to start with).

I'm sure others are less sincere in their beliefs though. I think some psychiatrists have tended to view CFS as a career opportunity, because its a big hole just waiting to be filled with their ponderings. And its just super fantastic now that governments and insurance companies start to see something in it for them.
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
One is driven to wonder when it was that it became unfashionable for those who consider themselves scientists to wholly disregard clear evidence pointing to a conclusion contrary to their own dogma.

They simply refuse to listen to the argument that our objections are not based on philosophical niceties, but the fact that many of us never ceased to try exercise, until the attempts wore us down to the extent that we had no alternative but to desist.

If the facts fail to support the hypothesis, "tant pis pour les faits".

As I have said before, I found that written in about 1890. Perhaps there never was a golden age.
 
Messages
1,478
One is driven to wonder when it was that it became unfashionable for those who consider themselves scientists to wholly disregard clear evidence pointing to a conclusion contrary to their own dogma.

They simply refuse to listen to the argument that our objections are not based on philosophical niceties, but the fact that many of us never ceased to try exercise, until the attempts wore us down to the extent that we had no alternative but to desist.

If the facts fail to support the hypothesis, "tant pis pour les faits".

As I have said before, I found that written in about 1890. Perhaps there never was a golden age.
I think it became unfashionable for scientists to do their job properly as the funding became more restricted and less based on furthering knowledge, but more on furthering profit for a very specific purpose. All research should be grounded in terms of the benefit to mankind but I do wonder if funding pressure is driving this rather piecemeal and publication happy approach.

If the number of publications has increased to secure the next bit of funding, then your career as a scientist becomes increasingly linked to the funding rather than the discovery. This makes it tempting to manipulate "negative results" into "positive results". This is obviously how bad scientists conduct themselves and has been around for a long time. I think that the good scientists are dwindling at the expense of the bad though as it becomes more fashionable to be judged on the superficial rather than the in depth quality of your work.

I think this is seen culturally elsewhere and is being driven in a large part by the media. Having a skill and a trade has far less respect than making money by being unskilled and just talking a good talk.

The BPS crew are actually sadly more up to date with how to extract money out of the system and this has nothing to do with benefitting the people they swore an oath to care for.
 
Messages
66
Yet another article that is maddening, upsetting and laughable given how grossly it misrepresents patients and their legitimate concerns.

It fails to recognise any evidence, research or comment, outside the psych world, and projects the failings of the PACE trial and its intimidations onto patients when reality is it is the reverse.

There appears to be a belief that subjective psych opinion overrides fact (which is why it is so useful in supporting political and commercial interests).

And it is the proponents of PACE who have repeatedly rehashed and utilised the 'evidence' of the original trial to support their own vested interests.

What's truly astounding is that the people involved in this shameful behaviour and spin are supposedly esteemed mental health professionals who are trained to support and care!
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Which is Cartesian dualism. Bring on the monism!

I'm not really sure I believe in the notion of the mind. That's just the observed effect of what the brain is doing. Some people seem caught by the "I think therefore I am" statement but this lot have an alternative version of "I think therefore I am ill" but I still prefer the "I don't think therefore I'm not"!

Its all just words unless the concepts are properly grounded and defined.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
If the number of publications has increased to secure the next bit of funding, then your career as a scientist becomes increasingly linked to the funding rather than the discovery. This makes it tempting to manipulate "negative results" into "positive results". T

These days as citations matter but no one looks at what the citations are publishing something that people then cite to refute or give as evidence of bad practice can be a positive for someones citation count and career.
 

lilpink

Senior Member
Messages
988
Location
UK
One is driven to wonder when it was that it became unfashionable for those who consider themselves scientists to wholly disregard clear evidence pointing to a conclusion contrary to their own dogma.

When money entered the equation I imagine. Another case akin to the PACE PI's non declaration of competing interests possibly?:

Petrie and Weinman - possible conflicts of interest?

Patients’ Perceptions of Their Illness: The Dynamo of Volition in Health Care - Keith J. Petrie and John Weinman

Current Directions in Psychological Science 21(1) 60 –65

DOI: 10.1177/0963721411429456

First Published January 31, 2012

From the Abstract - "Interventions based around changing inaccurate or unhelpful perceptions of illness are an important emerging area of health psychology."

Under 'Declaration of Conflicting Interests'

‘The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.’



BUT - https://www.pharmacytoday.co.nz/news/2010/july-2010/22/atlantis-plan-overseas-expansion.aspx shows that both were working for Atlantis in 2010, a company that provides health psychology solutions to address non-adherence behaviours by patients. So presumably they were still there in 2012, I doubt they quit and then rejoined the company. (NB They didn't actually mention funding/financial support in the declaration of conflicting interests).

Edit: apols.. link not working for me atm. I'll try to correct this.

Edit 2: I still can't access that link atm which is pertinent to the date at which they were involved with 'Atlantis' in terms of the mentioned article of 2012. But here is a link to their website: http://www.atlantishealthcare.com/uk/approach
 
Last edited:

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
One is driven to wonder when it was that it became unfashionable for those who consider themselves scientists to wholly disregard clear evidence pointing to a conclusion contrary to their own dogma.
Sorry to quote my own post, but I obviously cannot see straight enough to do my own editing this morning. That should have read "fashionable".
 

Art Vandelay

Senior Member
Messages
470
Location
Australia
It looks like the authors got their talking points directly from Wessely et al.

The PACE trial: It’s time to broaden perceptions and move on

The title even echoes Wessely's quote that "there's nothing to see here, move on" when some of the PACE data was released and reanalysed.

He has criticised the PACE trial for their reporting of treatment effectiveness, the definition of recovery and for the fact that the data are not freely available. These issues and other points raised have been responded to by the PACE authors in detail in this journal (White et al., 2016). They have also previously answered a number of similar rounds of critiques (Sharpe et al., 2016; Wessely, 2015; White et al., 2016).

Again, the PACE authors and Wessely have consistently fobbed off any concerns that have been raised with the PACE trial by glibbly claiming that these criticisms "have been dealt with elsewhere".

Yet, when you actually read the sources they cite, it's clear that the concerns have not been addressed at all. As Tuller notes, these articles that supposedly provide their rebuttals contain obfuscation and little else. They don't tackle any of the criticism at all.

Coincidence? I think not.
 
Last edited:

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
Some people seem caught by the "I think therefore I am" statement but this lot have an alternative version of "I think therefore I am ill" but I still prefer the "I don't think therefore I'm not"!

I seem to recall reading somewhere that a modern take on this would go along the lines :"Thought is occurring therefore something is."
 
Messages
3,263
Eww, this is interesting, @lilipink:
PR.png


It looks like Weinman and Petrie have taken cash to have their names attached to this service.
 
Last edited: