1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

A general thread on the PACE trial!

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Esther12, Nov 7, 2017.

  1. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Crawley's lying again about the PACE trial. If only there were such things as people whose job it is to verify facts and press people for evidence of their claims. Maybe kept in some journaling form, some sort of... journalist. No, that's preposterous, no one could possibly do that: check basic facts.

    She is lying here and that the reanalysis used the pre-registered protocol. Doesn't matter, she still lies because there are no consequences to blatantly lying about medical issues.

    https://twitter.com/user/status/1447216997226491915

    https://twitter.com/user/status/1447217307542040579
     
  2. petrichor

    petrichor Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    320
    This is from 2016, not recent
     
    alktipping, Joel and Barry like this.
  3. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    The key to it is independent verification. Vaguely reminds me of grappling with simultaneous equations in my youth, and having to appreciate that it's no good trying to just rehash the same equation in different ways, but needs something external to it.
     
    alktipping and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  4. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,733
    Location:
    UK
    The first post is from a recent interview with Crawley recently, re the Clock trial for kids with long Covid. The 2016 one is for background info.
     
    Kirsten, alktipping, rvallee and 4 others like this.
  5. InitialConditions

    InitialConditions Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,580
    Location:
    North-West England
    I have just noticed the Queen Mary PACE trial page has been removed or moved. This page was full of info on PACE and had links to various documents, such as trial materials.

    https://www.qmul.ac.uk/wiph/research-projects/current-projects/projects/pace-trial.html

    This page was active a few months ago. It looks like a whole section of the website has been removed or moved, and not just the PACE page. I can't find any new pages on PACE.
     
    MEMarge, Woolie, Sean and 10 others like this.
  6. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
  7. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,129
    I was contacted by one participant at the time, the problems caused by treatment were not being recorded. How common was this? Peter Kemp might like to ask more questions.
     
    Amw66, alktipping, MEMarge and 6 others like this.
  8. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,595
    Posts moved from Paul Garner on Long Covid and ME/CFS - BMJ articles and other media.
    I think the statement that scientists are flawed humans is entirely appropriate.

    I think the PACE trial was intended to provide reliable evidence i.e. since all of the previous trials were unblinded and used subjective outcome criteria (questionnaires). I.e. PACE was supposed to use objective outcome criteria (actimetry - FitBit type devices).
    In the end the researchers dropped the actimetry and resorted to questionnaires - meaning that the whole trial was pointless. Still, they got paid for work which did not meet the contract requirements.
    Then there's the issue of changing the measure of recovery - to the point that someone who qualified for a lung transplant was deemed recovered.

    As for those who are ill and/or their families etc. - I think it's entirely legitimate to challenge this debacle.
    Even an ordinary taxpayer should challenge the waste of £5 million pounds of public money.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2022
    alktipping, JemPD, Willow and 2 others like this.
  9. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Not convinced that was why PACE paid initial lip service to objective outcomes though. I think until @Jonathan Edwards raised the issue a few years back, this gaping methodological hole was just the norm for psych medical trials, and even to this day they cannot get their heads round why it is so problematic. For them illness = self-reported subjective symptoms - modify self reported subjective symptoms by fair means or foul = problem solved. A £5M stitch up.
     
    EzzieD, alktipping, Arnie Pye and 4 others like this.
  10. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    They dropped actigraphy but still had four objective outcomes. And I don't think the whole trial would have been pointless had they accepted their poor results and not changed their outcomes. They would have had null results and the field could have moved on.
     
  11. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,595
    Yip I think Brian Hughes +++ has been trying to change the norm --- but it seems to persist.

    Yip --- they shouldn't have been allowed to drop actimetry i.e. unless the funding was withdrawn.
     
    Sean, alktipping, Mithriel and 2 others like this.
  12. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,051
    Location:
    UK
    Indeed, but it doesn't even need to involve addressing the symptoms. Modify the self-report, full stop.

    The BPS method involves persuading patients to change their attitude to—in other words, lie about—their symptoms. There is no actual treatment.
     
    MEMarge, Art Vandelay, EzzieD and 6 others like this.
  13. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,595
    You obviously know way more about this than I do. Yes if they'd even reported that participants hadn't been able to return to work, education +++ then it would have been clear that there was no meaningful improvement.
     
  14. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    They are never going to get their heads around it. They know all about correct methodology (didn't Wessely write the exemplary "Clinical Trials in Psychiatry"?), but consider what they are doing as more advanced and appropriate in the field of psychological research. They regard us as philistines for clinging to the scientific method. They think they are Picasso:

    We are telling them to paint like Raphael, but for them that is so last Thursday. So when we bang on about correct trial methodology we are just proving to them how backwards we are. They know. Really.

    This was explained to me during an English lesson with a German psychotherapist over 4 years ago:

    https://www.s4me.info/threads/wish-me-luck-everybody.341/page-3#post-5964

    They know from clinical experience what the truth is, and having to publish scientific papers paying lip-service to scientific trial methodology is an affront. So they bend and fiddle, as they are perfectly entitled to because they should never have had to publish their knowledge in such an inappropriate format anyway. And we still don't get it. I'm not surprised they're so angry with us.
     
    Woolie, Hutan, Mithriel and 12 others like this.
  15. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,916
    Oh, good grief Sam, sometimes you make it impossible for me to breathe :rofl:
     
    alktipping, Kirsten, MEMarge and 4 others like this.
  16. rainy

    rainy Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    207
    Location:
    Norway
    I had a similiar conversation with a psychology student. She told me about a subject she was studying that semester called ‘treatment research’ (norwegian: behandlingsforskning).

    In this subject she had learned that because psychologists fight to have the same authority as doctors, they make the mistake of trying to be as similiar to doctors as possible with their research, and wrongly think that psychology can have answers the same way medicine can: with numbers and known causes. To think that psychology could use the same rules for knowledge as science is weird and unnatural. And that while science is knowledge that explains, psychology is knoweldge that needs to understand.

    (I have no idea what knowledge that understands means.)

    This person also said it’s cowardly of psychologists to not stand up and say that ME could have psychological causes, and it’s cowardly of psychologists to think that they don’t have the authority to do that.

    I find it so weird that someone could argue that psychology should move away from scientific ways of gaining knowledge, and in the same breath say this field should have authority to speak on causes of illnesses.
     
    Woolie, alktipping, Trish and 6 others like this.
  17. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    That explains why the likes of Wessely and Crawley consider themselves to be brave heroes, and have even constructed the concept of the militant activist to support their delusional narrative. This unhelpful belief system (brave champion hounded by militant activists) has a way of spreading from one susceptible psych to the next. It is a form of mass hysteria which should be studied. Getting the Sunday Times to mock up a letter which never existed threatening to cut off balls she doesn't have (Freudian much?) and put it on the front cover of their supplement is not healthy behaviour. Neither is waving this work of art, much in the manner of someone trying to prove alien abduction by waving a picture of a crop circle, at a TEDX talk in which she publicly portrays herself as a brave champion hounded by militant activists. It's just not normal behaviour by any standard.

    Open letter to TEDxBristol regarding Esther Crawley's presentation on 2 November 2017
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2022
    Woolie, Snowdrop, alktipping and 11 others like this.
  18. Sarah

    Sarah Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,494
    This made me think of the Michael Franks track, 'The Critics Are Never Kind'.
    Code:
    https://youtu.be/-xEL1usTMK8
     
  19. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    Thanks, I needed that. I was getting a bit het up but now I'm all mellow again.
     
  20. Mithriel

    Mithriel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,815
    I have never forgot a book I read which said that human beings seemed to be programmed for pity. Once someone claims to be a victim all logical reasoning flies out the window. Saying you don't believe them is then seen as an attack and makes people defend them even more.

    Calling us terrorists was a strategy that worked for them.
     
    Woolie, alktipping and Sean like this.

Share This Page