An international group of 36 scientists and clinicians have added their names to an open letter that was sent three months ago to The Lancet, pointing out serious problems in the PACE trial. The letter, sent on 13 November, told The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, that “such flaws have no place in published research” and
Recently, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced its protocol for a new intramural study examining post-infectious fatigue. The community has been eagerly awaiting the publication of the protocol since the October announcement that the NIH was finally making ME/CFS a priority. Numerous patients and organizations have attempted to initiate a dialogue with the
I am writing this piece to offer Dorothy Bishop & Stephan Lewandowsky some patient perspective on their joint piece in Nature : “Research integrity: Don’t let transparency damage science”. Specifically, I would like to add some context to this line in particular:- “When people object to science because it challenges their beliefs or jeopardizes their interests, they are rarely committed to informed debate.”
Professor James Coyne told a packed audience at Belfast Castle in Northern Ireland on Sunday that the PACE trial was “bad science” that was “being badly misrepresented by the investigators”, resulting in “clear harm to patients”. The PACE authors had, he said, changed their study endpoints after peeking at the data and had suppressed analyses
David Tuller has published a new article in the Health Affairs blog that summarizes the issues with the conduct of the PACE trial and also examines the ways in which PACE and other studies have impacted the attitudes of doctors and the clinical guidelines used by doctors to treat patients. Tuller’s series of articles reporting
On February 3, 2016, a group of patient organizations and advocates (including #MEAction) sent a followup letter to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) further detailing concerns with the 2015 AHRQ Evidence Review and reiterating their request, originally made in November 2015, to reanalyze the conclusions of AHRQ’s Evidence Review in light of
Geocentrism and PACE – both on the wrong side of science Thank you to Ella Peregrine for kindly allowing us to republish her facebook post on #MEAction Recently, David Tuller, James Coyne, Vincent Racaniello, and some other non-invested scientists and writers have been looking more carefully into the claims and relative lack of transparency of the
Journalist and public health expert Dr. David Tuller has, on Virology Blog, attacked a recent commentary in Nature that included “hard-line opponents” of research into chronic fatigue syndrome with climate change denialists and pro-tobacco campaigners who engage in “endless information requests, complaints to researchers’ universities, online harassment, distortion of scientific findings and even threats of
Tell our charities: QMUL must release PACE data I need your help. The UK Information Commissioner recently ruled that Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) must release PACE trial data requested by a patient under the Freedom of Information Act. However, QMUL appealed. The appeal will soon be heard at a tribunal. Meanwhile the PACE
I’ve been inspired to write by Lucibee’s recent blogpost about the PACE trial (https://lucibee.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/my-thoughts-about-the-pace-trial/), She raises an important point about how patients can sometimes be received for reporting any sort of improvement from CBT or GET.
