Dr David Tuller: Do All Clinical Trial Experts Love PACE?

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
4,158
Likes
20,580
Location
UK
http://www.virology.ws/2018/07/09/trial-by-error-do-all-clinical-trial-experts-love-pace/

Trial By Error: Do All Clinical Trial Experts Love PACE?
9 JULY 2018
By David Tuller, DrPH

Professor Michael Sharpe blocked me on Twitter many weeks ago but apparently can’t restrain himself from tweeting at me again. Maybe I’ve gotten under his skin.

Yesterday he tweeted what must have felt to him like a slam-dunk question: He wanted to know how many clinical trials I have conducted. The answer is none. But I don’t need to be a clinical trial expert to know that it is impossible to be “recovered” (or “within normal range,” per The Lancet) and “disabled” simultaneously on a primary measure, as happened in PACE. I don’t need to be a clinical trial expert to know that you can’t publish newsletters in which you promote therapies under investigation as already proven to be effective.

Like previous responses to criticism, Professor Sharpe’s challenge has nothing to do with the concerns raised about PACE. I have never positioned myself as a clinical trial expert, so whether I have ever run a clinical trial is irrelevant. I have always made clear that I am a journalist with an interdisciplinary public health doctorate from Berkeley. (Or a public health academic with a journalism background. Whatever.) I have vetted my claims about PACE with many clinical trial experts–including statisticians and epidemiologists at leading institutions. Without exception, they have found Professor Sharpe’s study to be a piece of crap.

Professor Sharpe himself triggered this recent exchange when he wrote, in his briefing for last month’s parliamentary hearing, that none of the public critics quoted in articles about PACE were clinical trial experts. For good measure, he added that such experts, including “the many peer reviewers of the paper when it was published in The Lancet,” regarded PACE as “a high quality trial.” The Lancet has never provided details about the peer review process. We also know that the paper was fast-tracked to publication, which would limit how many reviewers could possibly have scrutinized it. So it is hard to take Professor Sharpe’s comments here at face value.
 

Frenchguy

Senior Member
Messages
119
Likes
321
Location
France
Seriously, could someone devote himself to slapping him?
Tired of hearing about this guy who has
just received money to say that ME / CFS is psychological.

If you read this post Sharpe, tell yourself that once the patients will be treated properly and recover health, you have interest to walk along the walls.
You will have to explain why you persisted in pushing people to suicide.
 

HowToEscape?

Senior Member
Messages
605
Likes
800
Seriously, could someone devote himself to slapping him?
Tired of hearing about this guy who has
just received money to say that ME / CFS is psychological.

If you read this post Sharpe, tell yourself that once the patients will be treated properly and recover health, you have interest to walk along the walls.
You will have to explain why you persisted in pushing people to suicide.
He would respond along the lines of "Sadly, the patients seemed to have deep underlying psychological problems..."
 

Mithriel

Senior Member
Messages
688
Likes
816
Location
Scotland
Michael Sharpe developed the Oxford definition of CFS and has been there right from the beginning of the fiasco in the UK. His entire career and reputation is built on the BPS view and treatment. He is not wrong, it is the patients' not choosing to follow his beautiful guidelines that keeps us ill.