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

Watt from MRC defends PACE in letter to Times

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by JohnTheJack, Aug 27, 2018.

  1. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator

    Messages:
    4,198
    Likes Received:
    20,534
    Location:
    UK
    Cochrane has become a fairly standard defense from the PACE team which is one of the reasons I think they (or probably the SMC) wrote at least a draft of that letter.
     
  2. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,665
    Likes Received:
    57,910
    Quoting that would seem to be a bad mistake at this point.
     
  3. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    27,170
    In addition to the CBT & GET ones, there's this too: 'Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs for the treatment of idiopathic chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome'

    https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006348.pub2/abstract
     
    rvallee, MEMarge, Dolphin and 4 others like this.
  4. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    11,004
    yeah, I saw that. but she seemed to be talking about CBT/GET, so I'm going to assume the 2004 first version of the exercise review is what it's supposed to be referring to. but it's pretty unclear so that's really just a guess.
     
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    27,170
    Seems weird to say 'three reviews' if she means the current CBT and GET ones, and then one of the earlier versions of either. Also seems weird to refer to the Chinese medicine one, or the IPD one (the published protocol or the unpublished review). Whatever she's referring to, it's weird.
     
  6. Robert 1973

    Robert 1973 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    5,732
    Location:
    UK
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    27,170
    Nice one Neil.
     
  8. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    7,075
    Location:
    Australia
    Excellent, the reply is nice and concise and rebuts the central point.
     
  9. Dr Carrot

    Dr Carrot Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Thought I’d paste the letter here for those who don’t want to / are unable to click through to Twitter:

     
    inox, Indigophoton, janice and 19 others like this.
  10. Cinders66

    Cinders66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    6,522
    I actually think the letter is typically inoffensive and non boat rocking. It might achieve what they wanted to get out there but ...

    It kindly allows Fiona to be confusing rather than conveniently conflating ideas of hostility and legitimate criticism. maybe that’s fair enough.

    It says in his experience PACE isn’t such and such, well one mans experience is neither here nor there, far better to save characters for something useful and say it as fact.

    It to me, leaves it open that PACE is a reasonable treatment but a poor trial whereas it’s all rotten , theory, practise , studies, cost to tax payer

    Says “we’d like to see” good research rather than demanding or calling for MRC to step up, that’s along with the physician led services MEA “would like to see” , decent severe care they’ve been wanting to see for years.

    “Inevitable consequences” isn’t going to be understood by the public as “harm, disability, waste of life” so saying that is better

    No mention of scandalous waste of resources and imbalance in MRC funding

    A rare chance to publicly engage with MRC seems more like afraid to bite the hand that feeds it, as did Chris pointing twitter response.
     
  11. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    8,583
    I’m sure some people would have liked them to say more. But a letter to a newspaper needs to get published before it is seen as good in my mind. It is easy to write one that is too long or doesn’t run smoothly.

    The fact that at least two other letters went in should probably have helped it so thanks to those who wrote in like @JohnTheJack and @Robert 1973.
     
  12. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    27,170
    I thought the 'in my experience' bit was odd too, but I think it's probably wise to present Watt as confused rather than cynically manipulative. It wouldn't surprise me if she was being cynically manipulated by others.
     
  13. Binkie4

    Binkie4 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    9,479
    The letter was edited by the Times, specifically the title. Will post if there is any further information on this.
     
  14. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    33,364
    Indeed. She may be the "crumple zone" that others engineer to keep themselves safe.
     
  15. Binkie4

    Binkie4 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    9,479
  16. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    13,381
  17. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    12,257
  18. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,665
    Likes Received:
    57,910
    It seems a non story about women being bullied. Men get bullied in science too, and recently the main bully was a woman. It is a dog eat dog business full of bad interpersonal relations but what's new?

    The real problem is patronage and pecking order, which MRC have always had a problem with. Defending the PACE authors seems to me more like her male colleagues defending their own against troublemaking minions. All rather two legs good four legs bad.
     
  19. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,194
    Likes Received:
    27,788
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    It’s disappointing when people only perceive the negative effects of the establishment through public organisations in so far as it affects them, in this case as an employee, and can’t see the negative impact on those the public organisations are supposed to serve. For me a key part of being a decent public servant in any profession is to be able to put yourself in someone’s shoes.
     
  20. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,672
    Likes Received:
    21,186
    Location:
    Canada
    Nearly without fail, physicians quote Cochrane as the source for their support of CBT/GET. It seems to be the gold standard for evidence-based medicine. The fact that Cochrane miscategorized ME in mental health and completely ignores the body of evidence while referencing a paper on Chinese herbal medicine is just scandalous.

    A lot of people have f*cked up massively in this but few have such impact as Cochrane as far as implementing the psychosocial BS. I doubt that the fact that it is based in London is coincidence. I don't think Cochrane actually did their work in good faith, it is just awful and non-professional.

    What does that say about everything else they publish? Depending on how things unfold in the future, this should have a massively negative impact on their reputation, but accountability seems to be the exception rather than the norm in medicine. Reputation above ethics.
     
    Binkie4, Maggie, MEMarge and 19 others like this.

Share This Page