Anyone recorded and produced transcripts of all these radio interviews?
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 register, simply click the Register button at the top right.
You're welcome to do it yourself! Sharpe is just over an hour and a half in here:
I know where you're coming for (or presume I do): you're mainly interested in what Prof Sharpe said.
Yeah, it's easy to get caught up in the bad media coverage (generated from bad SMC, Oxford, and researcher spin), but the actual news is extremely good: the PACE followup has proven that CBT and GET are a huge failure. And even better yet, some big names in academia are calling them out on the spinning of null results.But in the right direction.
At the end of the follow-up period, which was a median of 31 months after randomisation, there was little difference in outcomes among patients in any of the original four treatment groups. There was also no significant difference between the original four groups in the proportions of patients reporting a long term deterioration in their general health.
One of the joint first authors, Kimberley Goldsmith, from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College London, said, “We found that participants who had originally been given specialist medical care alone or adaptive pacing therapy appeared to be doing as well as those who had cognitive behavioural therapy or graded exercise therapy in the longer term. However, because many had received cognitive behavioural therapy or graded exercise therapy after the trial, it does not tell us that these treatments have as good a long term outcome as cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy.”
The other joint first author, Michael Sharpe, professor of psychological medicine at the University of Oxford, explained to a press conference that participants were told on entering the one year trial that they would be given access to additional treatments if they were still ill at the end of the trial. In most cases the additional treatments accessed were cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy.
“The people who were originally allocated to the therapies that turned out to be not so good were more likely to have additional treatment,” he said.
Patients were more likely to seek additional treatment if they were originally assigned to specialist medical care alone (63% of the group) or adaptive pacing therapy (50%) than if they were assigned to graded exercise therapy (32%) or cognitive behavioural therapy (31%).
“We could have been more scientific and less humane and just say you have just got to stay in your groups for ever whatever happens, and that would have given a clearer answer but was not really practical,” Sharpe said.
He explained that cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy seemed to change the way that participants coped by helping them overcome an understandable concern that doing more would make them worse. “You see a very similar problem with chronic pain,” he added. “I think they get locked into a pattern where they do less, they get more understandably concerned about doing more, and their life kind of constricts around that.”
Commenting on the study, Rona Moss-Morris, professor of psychology as applied to medicine at King’s College London, said that the study was “robust” though with some limitations about which the authors had been clear. “Despite these impressive results, this isn’t time for complacency. Some patients do not benefit from the treatment. We need to do more to understand why. We also need to develop and tailor existing treatment to get larger effects.”
Agreed. He makes it sound like an option - shall we be scientific or not today? We can choose either approach, we're the authors after all.“We could have been more scientific ... "
hardly.“ ... and less humane"
Now he's defining "practical". This from a guy who couldn't organise a long corridor with 5 million quid. But still, his idea of "practical" is worth sacrificing clear answers for. It'll still be "scientific" anyway, or not, and we can choose whether to be scientific or not anyway without affecting the validity of our findings. It's all the same dream, right?... that would have given a clearer answer but was not really practical
The today program one is on at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p036fnz0 but not sure how long it will stay.
'No one chooses to have ME - everything changed when I became ill'
As a new study suggests that ME can be beaten through therapy and exercise, long-term sufferer Tom Kindlon says it's not that simple
Published 30/10/2015 | 02:30
- 1 Comments
Long struggle: Tom Kindlon and his mum Vera, who is now his full-time carer.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), sometimes called chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), is a chronic condition affecting an estimated 12,000 Irish people. People of all ages are affected, with the teens and the 30s the most common ages to initially become ill.
BMJ on PACE Trial:
Tackling fear about exercise produces long term benefit in chronic fatigue syndrome
How can the editors at a top scientific journal not understand the most basic principles of scientific research methodology? It's so depressing. Unfortunately, it's not just the BMJ who don't understand; it's widespread.Er, no BMJ, it didn't. Are they all this dumb?