-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Watt from MRC defends PACE in letter to Times
- Thread starter JohnTheJack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fiona watt letter mrc pace trial
adambeyoncelowe
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The old boys' network apparently admits old girls now, too. All they do is close ranks and toe the party line.
Sasha
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
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?
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?
"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."
"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:
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.
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.
Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
She did reply. Much in the vein of her Times letter.
Sasha
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
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.
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, ...
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.
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:
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.
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.
Sasha
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
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.
Dolphin
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
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
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I’d say there is a good chance she didn’t suggest the title, “chronic fatigue”, and instead it was someone in the paper.
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.
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.
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
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.
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
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.
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.
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.
ScottTriGuy
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
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.
Andy
Retired committee member
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".