Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Andy, Jul 2, 2018.
- Between us, we have very many decades of clinical and research experience in trying to help people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), also called Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME).
Ah, here comes the Schrödinger logic again. PACE is at the same time both about CFS, also called ME - and exclusively about CFS.
Glad to have this exposed, @dave30th.
What a pile of crap. Makes it all very clear why Michael Sharpe and his colleagues strenuously avoid live, public debate with knowledgable people in a forum that the PACE authors can't shut down when they lose control of the narrative.
OMG, this is an exercise in bad faith, nearly all their statements are contentious (going from half truths to blatant lies "There was no ‘outcome-switching’.")
This remark is particularly laughable:
I couldn't disagree more. It's essential that we keep on debunking this nonsense. I'm happy to take on the task if no-one else has the energy!
well, I kind of disagree with myself as well. I just didn't want to spend time repeating the same things I've written 500 times. I assumed commenters would take on the task. I'd just rather spend time clipping my toenails or watching milk sour or something else.
He he! I think it was good to post it quickly. I’ve used a screen shot to point out the ME/not ME inconsistentency over on Twitter.
@Lucibee May I suggest a virology guest post @dave30th?
Right now there are about 4 or 5 hardcore BPS proponents who can bring themselves to try to defend the PACE trial and most of them were involved in it in some way, at least the philosophy before hand.
The so called small number of academics opposing it is actually now well into the hundreds judging by all the letters, critiques, reanalysis and signed support against PACE.
Also show me a charity that actually supports the PACE trial to the extent he can claim the only other critiques in the patient sector are "activists".
Clinical trials are to compare treatments with each other, placebo, or no treatment at all, not to compare treatments with themselves over time.
Sharpe himself says so earlier in the same document:
It is a fact that the CBT & GET arms maintained their effect size at follow-up. But that is not the relevant fact, which is that there was no difference between trial arms at follow-up.
From abstract of PACE's own follow-up paper, on which Sharpe is listed as lead author:
There was little evidence of differences in outcomes between the randomised treatment groups at long-term follow-up.
The follow-up paper reported a null result. Neither CBT nor GET offered any long-term benefit over APT or SMC.
Therefore, PACE provided no justification for using CBT or GET for patients with CFS or ME.
There is no other possible interpretation of those results.
A little later down the page, he says:
I do find it oddly comforting that even he himself cannot keep up with his own bullshit. No, wait, I'm sure he is on top of it and what he intended to communicate was that some people which are very much not him use 'ME' and 'CFS' interchangeably but he has no control over that and has to clarify yaddayaddayadaa... Which reminds me of other things I am sure he was always on top of.
In the incredibly unlikely event that there is any chance whatsoever that he, in fact, was not completely on top of everything at some point while chasing the bounties Coyne spoke of, is there any chance we might ever get to see what Sharpe wrote about someone diagnosed with ME as an assessor? It's just that it would really make my day if I could admire how much dexterity it takes to never confuse, say, appropriate recommendations and realistic assessments of someone with ICC-ME with the same thing in someone with 'PACE-CFS'.
Having now done it, I can totally agree with you! That was sooooo fun (not)!
[btw - I'm happy to edit to add links or comments or whatever - or if anyone wants to reblog it elsewhere - go for it!]
So how many PACE investigators read and approved this document before it was sent?
Also - this document had one reference. I can't tell if that's meant to be a joke or not.
Well it clearly had a *huge* effect on the debate, didn't it! I don't think Sharpe was expecting to have to apologise after providing that as a briefing...
I have updated the post with a link to Lucibee's analysis. Thanks!
PACE contains multitudes, like the Bible. No other evidence or references required. It is Truth incarnate.
Have you been blocked yet?
I just checked. Apparently not. I guess I should have properly tagged him in the Tweet.
My takeaway from this is that he still believes his own lies and he interprets fact finding as a witch hunt.
Not that this is a revelation of any magnitude.
Separate names with a comma.