1. Guest, to read the 'News in Brief' post for w/c 11th Nov click here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Response: Sharpe, Goldsmith and Chalder fail to restore confidence in the PACE trial findings

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Tom Kindlon, Mar 26, 2019.

  1. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    951
    Likes Received:
    9,156
    This open access rejoinder officially came out today. I thought I would highlight it in its own thread.

    https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-019-0296-x

     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019
  2. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    951
    Likes Received:
    9,156
    To facilitate sharing on social media:


     
  3. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,698
    Likes Received:
    58,289
  4. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,046
    Likes Received:
    20,182
    Thank you Tom and Carolyn.
     
    NelliePledge, WillowJ, JemPD and 29 others like this.
  5. Obermann

    Obermann Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    890
    Location:
    Stockholm
    Well argued response, Tom and Carolyn. :)
    I am sure that even Professor Sharpe will see the light! ;)
     
  6. EzzieD

    EzzieD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    2,828
    Location:
    UK
    I suspect that will only happen when pigs learn to fly, hee hee. :D
     
  7. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    11,004
    Terrific reply.
     
    RuthT, JemPD, Nellie and 17 others like this.
  8. Joel

    Joel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    882
    Likes Received:
    4,696
    Location:
    UK
    Brutal response. I'd throw in the towel if I was them.
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,836
    Likes Received:
    13,561
    Thank you.
     
  10. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    33,377
    No ... not even then.
     
  11. James Morris-Lent

    James Morris-Lent Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    4,005
    Location:
    United States
    Wait a second, you're not supposed to say that!

    __________

    Such a clearly-written reply. Well done :)
     
    Hutan, andypants, Inara and 21 others like this.
  12. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator

    Messages:
    4,213
    Likes Received:
    20,641
    Location:
    UK
    That does read as they adjusted the thresholds to meet their needs. And we should remember that the Wilshire definition was their definition before they saw the data.
     
    WillowJ, ukxmrv, andypants and 24 others like this.
  13. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,016
    Likes Received:
    10,710
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    Great response!
     
    Hutan, andypants, hinterland and 17 others like this.
  14. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    So why make the changes, and then defend them so ferociously, if they are of no significance?

    So the changes do make a significant difference? Make up your minds. :rolleyes:

    The whole damn point of PACE was to test those previous results and clinical experience. The PACE authors themselves called PACE "definitive". That was the basis on which they pitched PACE to the funding and approval bodies.

    Also, clinical opinion is the lowest ranking in the formal evidence hierarchy. It is meaningless in the context of a (supposedly) rigorous clinical trial.
     
    Hutan, ukxmrv, andypants and 23 others like this.
  15. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,806
    Likes Received:
    13,503
    Location:
    UK
    It's a thing of beauty. I'm so glad this is now published.
     
    Hutan, ukxmrv, andypants and 17 others like this.
  16. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    17,791
    Likes Received:
    93,139
    Location:
    UK
    I read it again and find myself wanting to quote loads of it here just to be able to say YES!!! each time. Since that would just produce a whole lot more for you to read, I'll just say one big

    YES!!!

    to the whole paper. And huge thanks to @Carolyn Wilshire and @Tom Kindlon for writing such a superb rebuttal of Sharpe's nonsense. No wonder he's so rattled he's blocking people who link to this paper on Twitter.
     
  17. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,698
    Likes Received:
    58,289
    I don't see how scientists can survive saying this in the long term:

    We prefer the definitions of recovery we used to those used by Wilshire et al. as they give absolute rates more consistent both with the literature, and with our clinical experience.

     
  18. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    17,791
    Likes Received:
    93,139
    Location:
    UK
    Nor can I. I was astonished when I read it - couldn't believe they could so blatantly make such an unscientific statement. Like a criminal admitting their crime openly, but too stupid to realise what they'd done.

    I loved the Wilshire and Kindlon response to it:

     
    Snow Leopard, Hutan, WillowJ and 33 others like this.
  19. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,547
    Likes Received:
    16,319
    Simon Wessely had stated something similar in a comment under @Jrehmeyer article in statnews (edit, in 2016):
    https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-pace-trial/comment-page-6/#comments
    (page 2 of comments)

    It was really puzzling that he didn't realise how such a statement was revealing of their conception of "science".
    But it was in an internet comment.
    Now Sharpe et al. are claiming that in an academic journal. How can they not see that this is a non scientific statement?
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
    Hutan, inox, andypants and 30 others like this.
  20. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,698
    Likes Received:
    58,289
    So, we have the perfect storm:

    Risk of expectation bias is high in unblinded trials.
    Risk is expected to be higher for ME, because of the nature of the relevant endpoints.
    Risk is expected to be exceptionally high for CBT since cognitive bias is part of the treatment.
    Risk is expected to be off scale if the investigators do not understand the purpose of a scientific experiment - to challenge expectations.
     
    Woolie, Snow Leopard, Hutan and 30 others like this.

Share This Page