1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 15th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

The difficulties of conducting intervention trials for the treatment of [ME/CFS]: Expert testimony to NICE guidelines committee by Jonathan Edwards

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by MSEsperanza, Nov 12, 2020.

  1. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,508
    Location:
    London, UK
    Or maybe jus' the ornery patients on the committee, guv'ner.
     
    bobbler, Hutan, EzzieD and 11 others like this.
  2. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,208
    Location:
    Australia
    I hope there will come a day when those patients can tell the full story of what happened behind the scenes.
     
    bobbler, Hutan, EzzieD and 6 others like this.
  3. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,584
    Location:
    UK
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2021
    bobbler, EzzieD, Joh and 7 others like this.
  4. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,648
    I haven't followed this closely but the standard training for policy development involves an attempt to get you (policy maker) to approach the issue systematically. E.g. PESTLE - political, economic, science, technological, legislative, environmental or whatever.

    In this case Parliament has been active (parliamentary debate approx. 2 years ago?) and the government and opposition have been critical of the NICE guidance --- hence the review.
    I assume NICEs reputation has been dented by this shoddy work (old guidance).
    So the context for this review was to ditch the old --- not unreasonably.

    The fact that NICE's copybook has been blotted means that anyone trying to back the old (CBT/GET) had better have some good evidence. The fact that PACE was crap (no objective measurement of outcomes - e,g. activity monitors as per Fluge & Mella) meant that it couldn't be defended --- those who pointed out that it was flawed couldn't be ignored.

    Hopefully there will be some lessons learned --- bit worrying that the old guidance was adopted and that that might reflect a different context at that time.

    I really liked your summary of what is acceptable in terms of methodology [https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-d...mittee-by-jonathan-edwards.17760/#post-317174] @Simon M
     
    bobbler and MSEsperanza like this.
  5. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,462
    Location:
    Canada
    No accountability like... someone holding people accountable.

    If recent years have changed one thing, it's that the saying that enforcement is 9/10 of the law is vastly inadequate. It's really 9.9/10. Behind closed doors, all sorts of rules can be bent. And if someone breaks a rule and no one is there to hold people accountable, well the rules are still broken and people should be accountable to it later on but no one will hear about it until then.

    But the honor code. Oof. Nope. Doesn't work anywhere anytime ever. Even in the most favorable circumstances, self-interest wins, even above duty.
     
    bobbler likes this.
  6. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,857
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    RedFox, bobbler, MeSci and 5 others like this.

Share This Page