Thanks user9876. Of course, we do not know what he actually said, judging from the photos. But I imagine it would have been awkward for White to include thresholds in the slides, as the audience may figure out that the thresholds for his normal range in fatigue and physical function in a later slide overlap with an earlier slide about 'chronic disabling fatigue'.
There is a slide on informal care (small difference) and lost employment hours (no difference). I wonder if he told the audience that total service use showed no differences, or that welfare dependency actually increased during the trial.
It is interesting that he showed a slide of the Wiborg paper. I wonder how that was spun in context with the PACE Trial. Or if he mentioned that he abandoned the opportunity to collect similar data which discredits a pillar of GET.
The slides about "Good news?", "Some patient groups' reactions", "Why the anger?", "Nocebo effects?", and the mind-body stuff were a little irritating and missed the point. He also forgot to include "Why does your normal range overlap with your trial definition for chronic disabling fatigue" in the slide on patient frustration. So many other criticisms have been leveled against the trial, that regardless of their validity, he is probably not aware of them all.
In the time he spent on preparing and giving this presentation, he could have analyzed the trial data for protocol-defined positive outcomes and recovery. If he wants patients to accept his claims about recovery, he needs to publish the results using a comprehensive and conservative definition of recovery. Better late than never. The same could be said for actigraphy, which could be collected in the 5 year followup that is due in about a year or so.
