BMJ: Pressure grows on Lancet to review “flawed” PACE trial

Sasha said:
But he's referring to reviews after publication. What reviews?
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean this but "Furthermore, and unusually, because of the campaign against it, has been subject to a number of further reviews after being published, all of which have found its conclusions to be sound." Maybe he's talking about BPS commentary on it, and hyping it as reviews? Maybe someone should ask him to point at these reviews, which he might have been better advised to have referenced.
 
Michael Sharpe said:
Science does not progress by campaigners trying to stop research being done or by suppressing its findings, simply because they are unwelcome.
Click to expand...
As usual MS makes what on the face of it is a valid comment to try and establish his credentials; but the comment is not one that's valid to this. Yes, of course good scientific research should not be held back by campaigning against it; nor suppressing its findings. But that's not the same as trying to prevent bad, damaging research.

And "or by suppressing its findings" would be pantomime-hilarious were it not for the seriousness of it. The PACE publication was itself the most shameful suppression of its findings! It effectively supplanted the truth with the authors' own fiction. He's a real piece of work isn't he.
 
dave30th said:
Is this on twitter? It would be great if people could post screen-shots. I think it's probably a waste of time to respond to Sharpe at this stage of the debate. What's the point? Is someone listening to him?
Click to expand...

It's a rapid response to the BMJ piece on the BMJ site and this would be an excellent place to put on record what rubbish he's talking. He's speaking in public, where professionals will see the debate and where he can't control things or shut other people down.
 
dave30th said:
Yeah, I also assume this is Cochrane--those reviews agree with the PACE conclusions is how I read it, so in that sense he's claiming they prove PACE was good.
Click to expand...

But what about the reviews in JHP?
I have made another comment indicating that I believe Sharpe has made false statements - in particular about us that signed the Lancet letter.
Let's see if it gets posted.
 
Kalliope said:
Michael Sharpe responded too:

Odd piece in Times newspaper about pressure on the Lancet to review unwelcome PACE trial findings
This 'news item' refers to a three times recycled letter that has been repeatedly sent to the editor of the Lancet journal by campaigners, about a study that was published in 2011.

Edit to add: He claims no competing interests. Am I reading right?
Click to expand...

The point to be made regarding this lame defense is that science can in no way progress as he suggests if the way in which science research is conducted is fundamentally flawed. It goes beyond PACE. All research that uses dodgy methodology will yield nothing of any use to anyone until that is fixed. This is the message that should be hammered home.
 
If there weren't substance to the criticisms of PACE nobody would have been persuaded to sign the letter to the Lancet. No one would have done so purely because of campaigners or activists whinging about not 'liking' the paper or the therapies. It's sad that Sharpe protests in the manner he does. eta - He has nothing to say in defence of PACE or he would have said it long ago.
 
Michael Sharpe said:
The study was a clinical trial which found that cognitive behaviour and graded activity therapies in addition to medical care were better treatment for patients with chronic fatigue syndromes (CFS) than either a form of pacing therapy or medical care alone.
Click to expand...
Do you think the pluralisation of syndrome was a typo or deliberate? Is he suggesting there are different chronic fatigue syndromes? I’m not blocked on Twitter so I could ask him.

I have also just submitted a rapid response to the BMJ, making similar points to the above posts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom