Margaret Williams 16th April 2011:
Ms Parry continues: “Some people also said that the trial was meaningless because it excluded those with a neurological disease, therefore could not have contained anyone who had ME since this is a classified neurological disease. This is a bit silly because why would you design a trial that excluded the very patients you wanted to study?”.
The answer, Ms Parry, is simple: the Wessely School refuse to accept that ME/CFS is a neurological disorder.
As another, more informed, commentator (JT) has remarked, Ms Parry’s article “is an embarrassment….The trial was not studying the neurological disease ME/CFS but people with chronic fatigue in the absence of neurological signs, or “CFS/ME”….If the Oxford criteria had been applied correctly there would be no people present with ME….People should now be aware that the results were not clinically significant, and there remains little evidence to support the use of CBT and GET in the management of ME/CFS”.
Is it not important that highly respected scientific journalists get their facts right and refrain from contributing to the prevailing media bias about which Professor Jason was so outspoken?
People genuinely cannot understand how individuals who profess to be speaking up for the primacy of science can defend, let alone promote, such a transparently flawed study as the PACE Trial.
The failure of CBT/GET is written in the numbers: even the skewed data presented and published in The Lancet show that CBT/GET are of no clinical value in the cohort studied, and certainly do not confirm that the interventions are safe and effective enough to be generalised to everyone with ME/CFS or even “CFS/ME”. Read more>>