Guided graded exercise self-help for chronic fatigue syndrome: Long term follow up & cost-effectiveness following the GETSET trial, 2021, Clark et al

Perhaps they would try to justify cost effectiveness on the grounds that it appeared to accelerate improvement that took longer to be reached in the untreated group. We know that's nonsense, since we are sure all they are 'measuring' with their questionnaires are the effects of the treatment in persuading people to fill in questionnaires differently.

And perhaps those in the treatment group delaying seeking more help with their symptoms until they have completed the 12 week program, hoping that will help them. So that would at least temporarily reduce doctors visits. And of course, an online program is cheaper than face to face sessions. And having done the online program, I imagine many participants would have realised that it's useless, and there's no reason to think face to face will be any more useful.

So yes, I can see that they could make up all sorts of rationalisation for saying something is cost effective when it doesn't work, because it's cheaper than the alternatives that also don't work.

In their mad Alice in Wonderland world of idiotic research, there is a sort of perverse logic to their idiocy.
 
The abstract is amazing in its deception. There was no significant time x group interaction on any outcome measure. This is the relevant result in such a study design. The correct interpretation is that the treatment did not work. But the conclusion is worded in a similar way to the PACE long term follow up paper which spun the same sort of situation in a positive light. I can’t scrutinise the paper further since access to it is denied to us patients without institutional access but I’m sure it’s similarly filled with deceptive statements. Of course, merely pointing this out is just taken by these ppl as further evidence of being a vexatious loon who is happy to see another treatment fail and thus needing psychotherapy.
 
Andy said:
Trial By Error: Professor White & Colleagues “Regret” Ignoring Null Results in GETSET Trial Follow-Up

https://www.virology.ws/2021/07/05/...oring-null-results-in-getset-trial-follow-up/
Click to expand...
"I'm sorry I got caught" is the most pathetic there is but this doesn't explain the journal's inability to perform basic peer review and editing, why it was necessary to push them to do something that is expected to be part of their work to begin with. This is the "my dog ate my homework" of excuses. It's not even how pathetic the excuse is, it's that no one cares that is absurd. This is a pattern with this research, yet it's still held to standards so low that anything continues to pass.

Because none of this is accidental, it's fully deliberate, like exaggerating the cost of "somatization", which is not at all what they evaluated anyway. It's a pattern of willful deceit that the entire profession is complicit in enabling. The difference here is quite literally turning "it works" with "it doesn't work". Blatant deception.
 
This may be a trivial thought, but I find that the improvement in the “standard medical care” group at follow-up which led it to catch up with the improvement in the GET group is the nail in the coffin for GET. Assuming that it was indeed GET that led to an improvement in the active group, GETSET shows that this improvement is so marginal that doing nothing is just as effective. It is hard to come up with a rationale for recommending GET then.
 
Last edited:
cassava7 said:
This may be a trivial thought, but I find that the improvement in the “standard medical care” group at follow-up which led it to catch up with the improvement in the GET group is the nail in the coffin for GET. Assuming that it was indeed GET that led to an improvement in the active group, GETSET shows that this improvement is so marginal that doing nothing is just as effective. It is hard to come up with a rationale for recommending GET then.
Click to expand...
Coming soon in BPSland: akshually controlled studies are bad, only randomized is better.

Probably. Very likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom