Neuroskeptic: Open Data and CFS/ME – A PACE Odyssey Part 1

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Likes
18,053
Dr. Vogt: Treatment like this is not like a pill, it needs to be believed in, the patient needs to have some motivation and has to put some faith in it.
This is a claim that is impervious to testing and falsification. It is not science. It is impossible for the patient to prove that they have adequate belief, motivation, or faith, and hence the 'therapist' can always avoid responsibility for the failure of the 'therapy'.

That PACE fans have been reduced to this level of quackery is pathetic, disturbing, and utterly contemptible.
 
Last edited:

adreno

PR activist
Messages
4,841
Likes
10,946
Essentially Vogt is admitting to being a faith healer. Which is weird, normally it's desperate patients who will put their faith in cures where belief is the primary element, not people with Doctor in front of their name.
I suspect the Dunning Kruger effect is a major factor here. Disappointed to see that people like this are awarded with PhD scholarships.
 

Art Vandelay

Senior Member
Messages
469
Likes
1,901
Location
Australia
Not only is it our fault if we don't get better with CBT or LP - it is also our fault if _others_ don't get better with CBT or LP.

Wow.
Don't forget, according to Vogt, it's also our fault that we came down with our imaginary illnesses in the first place.

I suspect the Dunning Kruger effect is a major factor here. Disappointed to see that people like this are awarded with PhD scholarships.
Yes, he's struck me as someone who has vastly over-estimated his own abilities. Like most who display the Dunning Kruger effect, he is incredibly pompous and arrogant and extraordinarily sensitive to criticism.

In fact, I'm surprised he has stuck around on that comment thread for this long. Usually when someone questions his arguments on twitter, he storms off in a huff and whinges about "harassment" from "militants". I thought he'd do the same when Jonathan Edwards implied that he's a bit dim. ;)
 
Last edited:

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Likes
8,991
Very good comment by Osler's Paradigm

Quote:
By starting with a hypothesis and selecting the methods and results that fit their needs, dismissing or discarding the rest (including all of the objective results) and obstructing the efforts of others to explore the inconsistencies, the PACE investigators engaged in what is more accurately described as “marketing” not science.
[...]
Until then, consider me to be a skeptic. I will proudly wear the label of “vexatious” or even “methodological terrorist” if it makes marketing specialists masquerading as scientists feel better about themselves.
 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Likes
8,991
Looks like we have a mutual admiration society here.

A new definition of rational science seems to emerge here: take a Youtube video you found on the internet, claiming that someone was cured with a treatment. And here it is, you have the ultimate proof!

What a joke. Quacks get on very well! They should bring their homeopathic friend to the party.
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
Likes
5,288
Can somebody conversant with the appropriate technologies question the use of the word irrational? it seems possible to argue that the conclusions were incorrect but in what way were they irrational?
 

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
Likes
6,879
Been ill recently and distracted with so much other news/drama recently.

What happened to Part 2 of this?? Why has Neuroskeptic not followed up on part 1.

In Part 2 of this post I’ll examine the question of whether any of the PACE therapies, especially GET, produced harm.
It appears that Neuroskeptic was trying to criticise and shoot down Julie's work - a hatchet job on her. At the same time defending and advocating for the the PACE authors.

However he didn't expect a fierce defence from Julie and Jo Edwards and the other 133 commenters.

Not much of a skeptic.

Where is Part 2?? It has now been 5 months!!