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 8th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. 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.

Tags:
Page 2 of 15
  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,914
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Should be "Given the egregious and well documented faults in the PACE study"?
     
    Andy, Aug 27, 2018
    #21
    MEMarge, Peter Trewhitt, ladycatlover and 3 others like this.
  2. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,732
    The old boys' network apparently admits old girls now, too. All they do is close ranks and toe the party line.
     
    adambeyoncelowe, Aug 27, 2018
    #22
    janice, NelliePledge, Forestvon and 15 others like this.
  3. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,780
    Location:
    UK
    Great letter, @Peter Trewhitt, but I found the leading, 106-word sentence extremely hard to read and I fear that a lot of people won't make it to the end.

    How about (with a few other little things edited):

    The PACE study has egregious and well documented faults. When subjected to objective analysis, it produced null results. Related studies had similar failings of being unblinded and using subjective outcome measures. The study has been rejected by the international scientific community and by the consensus of MPs in British Parliamentary debate. A number of universities use it as an example of how not to conduct a research trial. Given all this, Professor Watt's reply supporting PACE raises serious concerns about the competence of the MRC's system of peer review, the project's independent steering committee and the relevant journals' peer review systems. This highlights a potentially serious failing at the heart of British academia.

    Will Professor Watt accept that if she has got her and the MRC's rejections of the criticisms of PACE wrong, then the MRC urgently needs to overhaul its procedures and to apologise to people with ME/CFS for the MRC's part in the mismanagement of the condition?
    ​
    Edit: IIRC, journalists are trained to write sentences not much over 25 words, for ease of reading. Here's why:

    "Writing guru Ann Wylie describes research showing that when average sentence length is 14 words, readers understand more than 90% of what they’re reading. At 43 words, comprehension drops to less than 10%...

    "Long sentences aren't just difficult for people who struggle with reading or have a cognitive disability like dyslexia or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. They're also a problem for highly literate people with extensive vocabularies.

    "This is partly because people tend to scan, not read. In fact, most people only read around 25% of what’s on a page. This means it’s important to get information across quickly."
    ​

    https://insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk/2014/08/04/sentence-length-why-25-words-is-our-limit/
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2018
    Sasha, Aug 27, 2018
    #23
    Woolie, Indigophoton, Forestvon and 18 others like this.
  4. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,225
    Location:
    UK
    An excellent letter, @Jonathan Edwards, thank you. Perhaps it is time to re-send it and ask whether, perhaps, Prof Watt, being a busy person, may have overlooked it.

    This is the paragraph which for me demonstrates the dire effect of PACE for our futures in the UK. Particularly the well made point that by palming all MUS patients, including ME, off on unqualified therapists with no medical knowledge or supervision, there will continue to be a complete lack of medical awareness of or interest in ME. If no consultant of any specialism ever sees ME patients, we are truly f***ed.

     
    Trish, Aug 27, 2018
    #24
    janice, Woolie, Indigophoton and 15 others like this.
  5. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,463
    Location:
    London, UK
    She did reply. Much in the vein of her Times letter.
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Aug 27, 2018
    #25
    Woolie, Indigophoton, ukxmrv and 16 others like this.
  6. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,780
    Location:
    UK
    All the establishment authority figures who back up PACE seem only to manage to do so by ignoring the specific criticisms. What a pity they can't be forced to engage in the debate that they're all so strenuously avoiding.
     
    Sasha, Aug 27, 2018
    #26
    Woolie, Indigophoton, Moosie and 22 others like this.
  7. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,225
    Location:
    UK
    How pathetic.

    So - she doesn't care, she's not bothered, she doesn't understand science, she believes the BPS model of ME, she has friends she doesn't want to upset, she doesn't want to rock the boat, ...
     
    Trish, Aug 27, 2018
    #27
    janice, Woolie, Indigophoton and 25 others like this.
  8. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    Cheshire, Aug 27, 2018
    #28
    Woolie, Indigophoton, WillowJ and 17 others like this.
  9. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,372
    How about this @Jonathan Edwards and others?

    Sir,

    We are surprised by Professor Watt's wholehearted and inaccurate defence of the PACE trial.

    The trial steering committee contained members with a financial interest in the outcome of the trial and several others with an allegiance to the model underlying the interventions being tested. It had no independent researchers.

    The peer-review for the main study was fast-tracked by The Lancet and there are doubts that such a long paper for such a large trial could have been properly reviewed in the time allowed. With so many people from so many institutions in such a small field involved in PACE, questions have been asked as to whether properly independent peer-reviewers could have been found.

    When the question of hostility toward the researchers was raised in a First Tier Tribunal hearing to release some of the data under the FOIA, no examples could be given.

    That a number of other researchers with the same beliefs in the effectiveness of the interventions have found similar results in smaller trials repeating the major flaws of PACE cannot be seen as endorsement of its findings.

    When the data from the trial have been reanalysed, no evidence has been found for the claims the interventions are effective. The trial findings have been rejected by every major institution in the USA, the international scientific community and in debate in Parliament. A number of universities now use it as an example of how not to conduct a research.

    There are many questions raised by this massive failure, not least about the MRC's own role in the trial and the competence of its system of peer-review.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2018
    JohnTheJack, Aug 27, 2018
    #29
    janice, Woolie, Indigophoton and 25 others like this.
  10. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,372
    I hadn't realized her KCL connection. I think that must have played a role.

    I also think we're seeing how the system works once a trial has been conducted and published: everything then swing in its favour as all the institutions involved have a massive interest in defending it, not least the MRC and The Lancet. It's their baby now so to speak. They would have to admit they stuffed up, so instead they just dig in. As we all know, it took 12 years for The Lancet to retract Wakefield.
     
    JohnTheJack, Aug 27, 2018
    #30
    janice, Woolie, Indigophoton and 26 others like this.
  11. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,780
    Location:
    UK
    If they're not acting in the interests of patients - which is their job - there's no point in them. Less than no point, because they're colluding in the harm being done to us.

    Time for people in those organisations to step down from their roles, IMO.
     
    Sasha, Aug 27, 2018
    #31
    Woolie, Indigophoton, MEMarge and 18 others like this.
  12. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,084
    Even though this looks short, from what I recall most published letters are shorter. How about also sending a shorter version. I previously did this with other newspapers with success.
     
    Dolphin, Aug 27, 2018
    #32
    Woolie, Indigophoton, Forestvon and 14 others like this.
  13. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,084
    I’d say there is a good chance she didn’t suggest the title, “chronic fatigue”, and instead it was someone in the paper.
     
    Dolphin, Aug 27, 2018
    #33
    WillowJ, MEMarge, ladycatlover and 9 others like this.
  14. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,372
    I think Tom is right. How about a shortened version:

    Sir,

    We are surprised by Professor Watt's wholehearted and inaccurate defence of the PACE trial.

    Questions have been raised about the independence of both the trial steering committee and the peer-review, and the speed with which the main paper was fast-tracked by The Lancet. In a First Tier Tribunal hearing to release some of the data under the FOIA, no examples of hostility to the researchers could be given. The small trials that have found similar results to PACE repeated its major flaws.

    When data from the trial have been reanalysed, no evidence has been found for the claims the interventions are effective. The trial findings have been rejected by every major institution in the USA, the international scientific community and in debate in Parliament. A number of universities now use it as an example of how not to conduct a research.

    There are many questions raised by this massive failure, not least about the MRC's own role in the trial and the competence of its system of peer-review.
     
    JohnTheJack, Aug 27, 2018
    #34
    janice, Woolie, Indigophoton and 21 others like this.
  15. Cinders66

    Cinders66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,205
    If that’s the case then complaints are warranted because changing the narrative that ME is CF is one of our key aims as we struggle for proper recognition and the media have got to take responsibility too. I’m trying to think of a comparable example, I can only think if there was a high level debate going on about migraines and the lay heading was “headaches” , not that that would happen. I realise it’s partly a product of the CFS name too or the too complex “ME/CFS” hybrid. I take your point it’s likely the paper
     
    Cinders66, Aug 27, 2018
    #35
    Woolie, ladycatlover, MEMarge and 6 others like this.
  16. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,486
    Location:
    UK

    This isn't about understanding good experimental design this is a civil servant whose job it is to ensure high research standards giving in to lobbying and backing the unbackable. Also standing by her organizations failure to act in the past. In effect this is the MRC saying it is happy with outcome switching and will not apply any standards of governance past a review panel which may be made up of those who have also done poor quality trials. Perhaps it is a good thing that the MRC will be scrapped.

    I think MPs should be demanding that Watt appears in front of the science and technology subcommittee to justify her comments and the lack of governance.
     
    Adrian, Aug 27, 2018
    #36
    janice, Woolie, Indigophoton and 36 others like this.
  17. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Watt's response fails to engage with any specifics, but tries to hide behind processes.

    Wasn't there the example of a mug being thrown? I think that it would be a mistake to make broad claims about 'hostility to the researchers' as it gives them a justification for coming back with any examples they have, and that's just not really a helpful topic for us to focus on.
     
    Esther12, Aug 27, 2018
    #37
    ladycatlover, JemPD, arewenearlythereyet and 4 others like this.
  18. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,372
    Could leave that out then.

    Sir,

    We are surprised by Professor Watt's wholehearted and inaccurate defence of the PACE trial.

    Questions have been raised about the independence of both the trial steering committee and the peer-review, and the speed with which the main paper was fast-tracked by The Lancet. The small trials that have found similar results to PACE repeated its major flaws.

    When data from the trial have been reanalysed, no evidence has been found for the claims the interventions are effective. The trial findings have been rejected by every major institution in the USA, the international scientific community and in debate in Parliament. A number of universities now use it as an example of how not to conduct a research.

    There are many questions raised by this massive failure, not least about the MRC's own role in the trial and the competence of its system of peer-review.
     
    JohnTheJack, Aug 27, 2018
    #38
    ladycatlover, Luther Blissett, arewenearlythereyet and 9 others like this.
  19. ScottTriGuy

    ScottTriGuy Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    692
    But only when the old girls act even more like old boys than the boys themselves.


    It is shocking Watt would make such an ignorant statement. Unless the context is recognized that she is nothing but a mouthpiece.

    I will admit taking some pleasure in witnessing these BPSers hang themselves in desperate attempts to hold onto their political and financial power.
     
    ScottTriGuy, Aug 27, 2018
    #39
    Woolie, ladycatlover, ukxmrv and 11 others like this.
  20. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,914
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    But Watt's letter refers to hostility towards the PACE authors, and the tribunal ruled that there was no significant issues in that regard, so I would argue it would be a mistake not to address it. Her bringing it up is a justification for us to say "yes, claims in that regard where made at the information release tribunals and were dismissed by the independent judges as an issue".
     
    Andy, Aug 27, 2018
    #40
    janice, Samuel, Indigophoton and 25 others like this.
Page 2 of 15

Share This Page