1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' post for w/c 11th Feb is here.
    Dismiss Notice

UK Health Research Authority defends PACE. Answer to MP's question, February 2019.

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Michiel Tack, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. Michiel Tack

    Michiel Tack Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    3,470
    Location:
    Belgium
    This thread has been split from the general thread on the PACE trial.

    The Health Research authority has responded to questions of MP Norman Lamb from the Science and Technology Committee, House of Commons, regarding the PACE-trial. https://www.parliament.uk/documents...Research-Authority-to-Chair-re-PACE-trial.pdf

    The HRA defends the PACE-trial and does not see anything wrong with it.
    The Science media Center is promoting the letter, with expert reactions to the letter. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...iry-on-research-integrity-and-the-pace-trial/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2019
    Forbin, Dolphin, Atle and 17 others like this.
  2. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Michael Sharpe makes it look like PACE has been totally cleared:

    When the report says:

     
    Forbin, petrichor, Dolphin and 18 others like this.
  3. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    From the HRA document

    But they found that:
    How did they arrive to this conclusion?
    :jawdrop:

    And so?

    WTF
     
    andypants, Dolphin, Chezboo and 16 others like this.
  4. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    They nonetheless investigated 3 separate issues.

    Conflicts of Interest

    Availability of data for secondary analysis

    Alterations in the outcome measures used

    :sick:
     
  5. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,644
    Likes Received:
    24,352
    "However, the full picture shows that the general approach was to release data responsibility."

    What data was that then?
     
  6. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,238
    Likes Received:
    16,103
    Location:
    UK East Midlands
    Anyone else think SMC are trying to be clever by getting quote from a Prof from LSHTM
     
    Invisible Woman and rvallee like this.
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    22,029
    This report seems to be a mix of confusion about what the criticisms made of PACE were and a presumption that if other supposedly authoritative sources said things were okay, they were okay. They don't provide any new information at all.
     
  8. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,238
    Likes Received:
    16,103
    Location:
    UK East Midlands
    Establishment digging their heels in - they are embarrassing
     
    andypants, Dolphin, DokaGirl and 5 others like this.
  9. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    7,992
    what does "the supplement of the categorical outcome scores by measures of improvement" mean? what is that referring to? The post-hoc "improvement" findings?
     
    andypants, DokaGirl, Barry and 6 others like this.
  10. Binkie4

    Binkie4 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    6,812
  11. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    6,518
    Location:
    Canada
    You just have to laugh at the fact that they cite NICE recommending the "treatments" as independent validation of the promise they held at the time when of course this recommendation came from their own work and Wessely's influence.

    Literally pointing at their own recommendation as evidence that it was recommended.

    According to me, I should receive the Nobel peace prize. I even have a good and proper recommendation: me. Thank me, that clever rascal. I also approve of me nominating myself and voting myself. And, oh would you look at that I can now confirm independent recommendation of my perfection and you just know it is true and perfect because I approve of it.

    Also according to my mirror: I am a thing a beauty. My mirror told me independently and I can vouch for it.
     
    MarcNotMark, Forestvon, sea and 30 others like this.
  12. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    22,029
  13. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    10,088
  14. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator

    Messages:
    3,437
    Likes Received:
    16,450
    Location:
    UK
    Since PACE hasn't published all the secondary outcomes as defined in the protocol (although patients published the recovery one) the HRA don't have high expectations over transparency.
     
    andypants, Dolphin, DokaGirl and 7 others like this.
  15. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator

    Messages:
    3,437
    Likes Received:
    16,450
    Location:
    UK
    So they basically reflect back to their only defense PACE is ok because Cochrane say its ok.
     
    Forbin, andypants, Dolphin and 14 others like this.
  16. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,236
    Likes Received:
    12,442
    This agency does not appear to have performed an independent analysis and was apparently deceived by the carefully crafted illusion that PACE is OK.

    That people who look only superficially into PACE conclude that there aren't major problems has happened before. A forensic analysis is required.

    For example, the classification of PACE as having low risk of bias by Cochrane violated Cochrane's own rules for assessing bias in clinical trials. The data sharing with Cochrane is also not what it appears, as the PACE authors themselves were part of the review team. Prof. Chalder even admitted that this was not an independent review. They have never released the data to independent scientists as far as I know (or at least not to scientists that were critical).
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
    sea, andypants, Dolphin and 17 others like this.
  17. large donner

    large donner Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    6,959
    Its rather confusing, which PACE study do they think carries the real results? The revised protocol study where they claimed modest recovery rates or the original protocol that didn't change the definition of recovery to being ill and recovered at the same time which allowed the revised definition to claim the modest efficacy rates rather than showing the facts that there was zero clinically statistical significance to the treatments?

    Or is such like out side of the scope of their investigation in which case what exactly did they look into?
     
  18. Robert 1973

    Robert 1973 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    4,233
    Location:
    UK
    HRA only concluded (wrongly IMO) that there are no major concerns within its regulatory remit:
     
    andypants, Dolphin, DokaGirl and 11 others like this.
  19. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    7,992
    I think in any response the limits of their remit must be emphasized. Although I agree that even within their remit this analysis falls short.
     
    Forbin, sea, andypants and 16 others like this.
  20. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    5,164
    Likes Received:
    37,929
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Do you think they really mean this?
    Surely they intended to say
     
    andypants, MEMarge, Dolphin and 6 others like this.

Share This Page