1. The latest crowdfunder to support David Tuller's work has opened. To donate click here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th October 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Sept 2016 Wessely comment under Rehmeyer's Stat article on PACE

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS News' started by Esther12, Feb 2, 2018.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,146
    I thought this was worth reposting for people who may have missed it at the time.

    He says "the PACE trial remains an excellent trial and a model of how to deliver a complex intervention RCT." What's most worrying about this is that he was President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and had some influence. All that extra funding for mental health research? How much of it is going on junk-science based on the 'model' of PACE?

    What an intro it is too.

    https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-pace-trial/comment-page-6/#comments

    He then responded to Dave's comment:

    This bit got picked up on, but he never explained it:

    "In essence though they decided they were using a overly harsh set of criteria that didn’t match what most people would consider recovery and were incongruent with previous work so they changed their minds – before a single piece of data had been looked at of course."

    Anyway, it looks very much like they had looked at trial data before deciding that they would not release results for the recovery criteria that they laid out in their trial protocol, as in response to an FOI request for these results after the Lancet paper came out in 2011 they said that this information was exempt from the FOIA act, as the result were due to be released in an academic journal:

    http://www.meassociation.org.uk/2011/05/6171/
    http://www.meassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/FOI+from+Queen+Mary.pdf
     
    Dolphin, Sly Saint, Barry and 11 others like this.
  2. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    10,051
    I wonder whether he would say something so obviously ignorant of trial methodology as this in 2018. It is interesting to compare this with the response to Amy Maxmen's article in Nature.
     
    Atle, Barry, BurnA and 8 others like this.
  3. Solstice

    Solstice Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    449
    I suggest he'll say stuff like that for aslong as he reckons he can get away with it.
     
    TigerLilea, Jan, NelliePledge and 9 others like this.
  4. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    10,051
    Perhaps the fact that he did not put his name to the reply to Nature indicates that he realises that me may not get away with it now without looking a fool.
     
  5. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,725
    Location:
    UK
    It may also be the location of the comment. He probably only cares about how certain groups of professionals view him and his image so commenting on a blog is safe but writing to nature is a different thing. I get the impression he does back channel lobbying of journalists.
     
    Sean, guest001, Valentijn and 4 others like this.
  6. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,146
    Not sure he'd get away with that one anymore though!
     
    Invisible Woman likes this.
  7. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,677
    So why the bold claims of recovery?

    And PACE was not predicated on whatever the original cause of the ME/CFS was, but the ongoing maintenance of sympoms being due to deconditioning. That statement is just misdirection and meaningless. Probably intended to sound convincing to those (too many unfortunately) who don't know better.
     
    inox, EzzieD, Dolphin and 2 others like this.
  8. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,725
    Location:
    UK
    I've read a few of Wessely's papers and they always struck me as having logical inconsistencies of big jumps in reasoning. I did think if someone were to formalize the arguments being made then they would become obvious. It can be a case of style over substance - there is a reason maths is the language of science and engineering.
     
    Trish, Barry, Dolphin and 2 others like this.
  9. Valentijn

    Valentijn Guest

    Messages:
    2,275
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Yes, he does a lot of philosophizing while trying to portray it as being based in something more substantial. And it's not the honest or logical sort of philosophizing either :p
     
    EzzieD, Barry, JohnM and 2 others like this.
  10. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,796
    Wessely is a sophist par excellence.
     
    Valentijn and Cheshire like this.
  11. Luther Blissett

    Luther Blissett Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,678
    I once read a paper about Authoritarians having a problem with syllogisms. (can't remember where)

    The example was

    Fish swim in the sea.
    Sharks swim in the sea.
    Therefore, sharks are fish.
     
    Valentijn and chrisb like this.

Share This Page