Wow, so not only does she do the ultimate insult, reduce it to chronic fatigue, thanks and how helpful, she turns this again into scaring off CFS researchers, except its actually doctors and researchers this time not patients.
The MRC suck when it comes to this illness, how about putting in some actual money lady? I very much doubt that this wasn’t a comment informed by others in the MRC or beyond, as she speaks the same language without, I doubt , having personally much to do with it
I think a letter to the Times is in order. I would be happy to sign. If I did I would make some tiny changes (partly typos).
In the longer term, PACE continues to have a disastrous effect on clinical care, equally relevant to research. It seems likely that treatments are being provided that do not work and cause distress. PACE is a major prop for the £1B expansion of so-called evidence-based therapies proposed now not just for ME but for any unexplained symptoms. The more I see the more I suspect none of this ‘evidence’ means much. Even Simon Wessely, who helped set PACE in train, is looking on, like the Sourcerer’s Apprentice, as PACE is used to underpin subcontracting care to providers whose staff are not even formally trained in CBT, let alone have useful knowledge of the illness. Commissioning groups are dispensing with physician contact. Whereas in the past physicians like Stephen and I could gain experience with the clinical picture and ponder possible causes we are faced with a future in which nobody even knows what the problem is that requires scientific input
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.
She did reply. Much in the vein of her Times letter.
She did reply. Much in the vein of her Times letter.
...the MRC and The Lancet...They would have to admit they stuffed up, so instead they just dig in.
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.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.
I’d say there is a good chance she didn’t suggest the title, “chronic fatigue”, and instead it was someone in the paper.Wow, so not only does she do the ultimate insult, reduce it to chronic fatigue, thanks and how helpful, she turns this again into scaring off CFS researchers, except its actually doctors and researchers this time not patients.
The MRC suck when it comes to this illness, how about putting in some actual money lady? I very much doubt that this wasn’t a comment informed by others in the MRC or beyond, as she speaks the same language without, I doubt , having personally much to do with it
I’d say there is a good chance she didn’t suggest the title, “chronic fatigue”, and instead it was someone in the paper.
That is a pretty uncompromising statement, indicating that she does not understand basic aspects of experimental design. She produces no arguments, relying on the fact that others thought PACE was OK.
The MRC are making complete fools of themselves internationally. Perhaps now is the time to copy on the forum the letter that I sent her a while back.
I consider this document now in the public domain and have no problem with it being copied elsewhere.
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.
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.
The old boys' network apparently admits old girls now, too. All they do is close ranks and toe the party line.
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".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.