1. See the 'News in Brief' from w/c 12th August, by clicking here, Guest.
    Dismiss Notice

David Tuller: Trial By Error: An Open Letter to The Lancet, Two Years On

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Andy, Jun 19, 2018.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    7,064
    Likes Received:
    52,489
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    http://www.virology.ws/2018/06/19/trial-by-error-an-open-letter-to-the-lancet-two-years-on/
     
    Eagles, Zombie Lurker, Jan and 37 others like this.
  2. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    24,185
    Location:
    UK East Midlands
  3. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,303
    Likes Received:
    16,008
    Interesting, as an attorney he probably doesn't want to lose his license by parroting alternative facts.


    I think we should start a betting pool on how quick it will be and how accurate. My money says not very, though i hope to be wrong.
    Where should the betting pool money go, David Tuller, OMF, Millions Missing?
     
  4. TiredSam

    TiredSam Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,125
    Likes Received:
    29,754
    Location:
    Germany
    Inara, Sly Saint, Solstice and 14 others like this.
  5. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    10,048
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I still think that without any valid objective measures, re-analysis is almost completely pointless, as it will only repeat the errors that were made during the trial.

    What is needed is an inquiry - one that has the power to contact and re-interview all the participants, to find out exactly how much harm has been done.
     
    Jan, sea, MEMarge and 16 others like this.
  6. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    24,185
    Location:
    UK East Midlands
    was there ever a response to the 2016 letter?
     
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    26,082
    LOL.

    I assume that is what's being requested, eg my emphasis: "Subsequently, in February of 2016, many of us signed an open letter to The Lancet requesting an independent investigation of the study."

    This sentence could make that less clear, but I can't imagine anyone at the Lancet would think that they could just get away with looking at the data and ignoring all of the other problems around the trial: "Given the worldwide impact of PACE, we urge The Lancet to do what the open letter two years ago requested: commission an independent re-analysis of the individual-level trial data, with appropriate sensitivity analyses, from highly respected reviewers with extensive expertise in statistics and study design."
     
    Jan, MEMarge, Inara and 14 others like this.
  8. Allele

    Allele Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    9,227
    The list of signatories is quite stunning.
     
    Jan, MEMarge, Inara and 18 others like this.
  9. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,243
    Likes Received:
    11,748
    Nicely timed. It can be referred to during the debate at Westminster on Thursday .
     
    Jan, MEMarge, Barry and 19 others like this.
  10. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    7,064
    Likes Received:
    52,489
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    My guess would be that there are relatively few new signatories to this, as there is a note of thanks to Mary Dimmock right at the end
    so I'm guessing they just contacted those who signed previously.

    Given that they managed not to sign the first one, even if they were contacted I'm sure we would have got sufficient dragging of feet from them so that they missed the deadline, as they did previously.
     
    Inara, Sisyphus, Melanie and 10 others like this.
  11. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,303
    Likes Received:
    16,008
    Indeed, but does anyone on our side know about this new open letter?
    Are there any S4ME members who can contact any of them and let them know of it?
     
    Melanie, alktipping, Esther12 and 2 others like this.
  12. Samuel

    Samuel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    1,597
    > And while the PACE trial claimed that GET is safe, AHRQ found that the therapy was associated with more adverse events.

    i knew that ahrq downgraded the evidence, but i did not know about the adverse events.

    can this be used?
     
    Jan, Inara, adambeyoncelowe and 13 others like this.
  13. Forbin

    Forbin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    5,863
    I haven't tried to compare all of the names side-by-side but I did notice that Dr. Derya Unutmaz of The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine was new to this letter. The previous letter preceded the grants made to Dr. Unutmaz and his lab for the study of ME/CFS which were made by the NIAID and NIH in 2016 and 2017 respectively.

    Dr. Unutmaz has made a very positive impression on me in the talks I've seen posted on the internet about his ME/CFS work.
     
    andypants, Jan, MEMarge and 20 others like this.
  14. Webdog

    Webdog Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    10,428
    Location:
    United States
    Jan, MEMarge, Inara and 15 others like this.
  15. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    7,064
    Likes Received:
    52,489
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    I've sent an email to a contact at MEAction UK highlighting it.
     
  16. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    10,368
    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 Lancet to actually do some sort of investigation is the goal. I mean, that would be nice, but it's unrealistic--it's clear that Richard Horton is not capable of acting with integrity on this issue. So from my perspective the larger goal is to provide Carol Monaghan with more backing when she talks in Parliament. It's to influence the GP association in Australia that has refused to review its guidelines and still recommends CBT/GET. It's to demonstrate to the health officials at the CDC what it means to take a stand on an issue. It's so patients have a document they can show their doctors and insurance companies when they try to insist on CBT/GET. Etc.
     
    adreno, andypants, Jan and 43 others like this.
  17. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    13,646
    I want to see the correlation calculations between the subjective self-report and the objective outcomes. That is what will seal the deal.
     
    andypants, Jan, sea and 12 others like this.
  18. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    10,368
    That would be interesting.
     
    sea, Inara, Invisible Woman and 5 others like this.
  19. BruceInOz

    BruceInOz Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    2,388
    Location:
    Tasmania
    Yes, it would be brilliant for this purpose, but a printer friendly pdf may be a better format. Is it possible to attach such to the blog?
     
    andypants and Melanie like this.
  20. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    26,082
    You could always just copy/paste and then format it however you think would suit you best.
     
    Trish and Melanie like this.

Share This Page