Search results

I have heard that speculation before. Certainly I've assumed he read it before and advised. Whether he was a formal peer-reviewer, who knows?

That's the first I've heard that I invented the term. Frankly, I see no real difference between "unhelpful" or "dysfunctional" illness beliefs and false ones. Reading the manuals for CBT and GET and all the previous studies makes it very, very clear that the illness beliefs are presumed to be...

So what happened first was an open letter in November, 2015, a month after the series ran. That one was signed just by the five experts I quoted, plus Vincent as Virology Blog host. Vincent got a note back from Horton's office that Horton was "traveling" and would respond when he got back from...

Yes, Carol Monaghan is aware of it. The Australians involved are aware of it. It will be shared with reporters as well. Anyone can share it with their insurers and doctors.

That would be interesting.

That's great. I thought I'd post it on Virology Blog. I'm assuming that's ok?

Well I don't expect it. I guess it was meant to be aspirational... :)

The idea is to re-post the letter in the near future with organizations added. So Action For ME will have a chance to decide along with other groups whether it wants to add its name. I will be curious what they decide to do. In terms of the goal of the letter--I wouldn't say that getting The...

Perfect. But is that Sharpe's Law or the Sharpe Corollary of Godwin's Law? Perhaps the relevant factor is whether a Nazi or Hitler analogy is also present.

http://www.virology.ws/2018/06/18/trial-by-error-sir-simon-scores-an-own-goal/

Possibly. But I'm so far behind in all the pieces I should be writing!

And no apology for enabling and abetting PACE. Action For ME really should take responsibility for that at this stage.

Michael Sharpe has now blocked me on twitter.

This seems like a serious issue here. No one can recall what Simon's role was? Amazing!

That's been the question! The Lancet of course won't say. One notion has been that perhaps the Dutch colleagues who wrote the commentary were involved. Maybe Sir Simon? Who knows? In any event, we know it was "fast-tracked" so it likely didn't go through anything particularly rigorous. Of...

And remember that the PACE authors read that commentary by their Dutch buddies and vetted it before publication. So they were very well aware of the words that were used to describe their outcomes. They have no possible claim of ignorance on how the commentary was used to get the word "recovery"...

@Esther12 I agree with all those points, especially about the objective measures. I wasn't aware of anything beforehand and never heard of PACE until the day it came out and I had to write a news story about it. I just meant that had they actually reported their original findings, that would...

@Esther12 What design do you think would have? It always seemed to me that if they had published honest results, it would have been like the reanalysis paper--end of story. CBT/GET don't work except to produce transient subjective reports of improvement. The trial would have served its proper...

Does anyone have a direct e-mail for Godwin?

It's great that Godwin is weighing in, although I don't really understand why in PACE the model was not falsifiable--it was falsifiable. The results per the protocol assessments proved that the model of the illness and treatments was wrong--or at least was not borne out in this experiment. They...