Please SMILE and GETSET for the FUQOFF trial

GETSET: when your mates are the trial steering committee ...

No problem making Endpoint changes during an unblinded trial if your mates who also ignore all the evidence that #MEcfs is a physical disease (PACE trial's Alastair Miller (infectious disease specialist and former Action for ME Medical advisor, the only "ME charity" that was part of the PACE trial and psychologist Rona Moss- Morris) are the trial steering committee and your PACE trial mates are part of the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee.

 GETSET Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee (DMEC): Astrid Fletcher, Charlotte Feinman and Irwin Nazareth who has co-authored MEcfs articles with Esther Crawley and Peter D. White ...

 PACE trial Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee (DMEC): Professor Paul Dieppe (initial chair), Dr Charlotte Feinmann (liaison psychiatrist) and Professor Astrid Fletcher (final Chair, epidemiologist).

 In 2012 a group of doctors in the UK wrote a letter to the Independent on Sunday and all British newspapers to condemn the harassment and death threats by patients of Simon Wessely of which he had never provided any evidence; the foi commissioner last year ruled that the psychiatrists had grossly exaggerated things/made things up and that there were no death threats. Amongst those signing that letter were: the three principal investigators of the PACE trial (Peter White, Michael Sharpe and Trudie Chalder), Alastair Miller, Rona Moss-Morris, Charlotte Feinmann, Esther Crawley, and MEGA's chairman Stephen Holgate. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/ios-letters-emails-online-postings-2-december-2012-8373777.html

Dr Keith Geraghty's undeclared conflict of interest

Does the PACE trial represent professional misconduct?

PACE trial should acknowledge inefficacy and harmfulness of CBT and GET

By Mark Vink, (Family Physician) the author of the 2016 Review of the PACE trial for which he was nominated for the John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science.

If CBT and GET had really been effective there would have been no need for an extensive number of changes to the recovery criteria made during an unblinded trial, making the definition much less accurate to the point that people who were still (severely) ill were classed as recovered.

The time has now come for the PACE trial authors to stop misrepresenting their own results; acknowledge the inefficacy and harmfulness of CBT and GET to prevent further unnecessary suffering inflicted on patients by physicians/therapists, which is the worst of all harms, yet totally preventable.

MORE @ Observantonline, the journal of the University of Maastricht

Berkeley's lecturer in public health: Bizarre PACE trial response

By David Tuller, lecturer in public health and journalism at the University of California, Berkeley:

They have recently argued, in response to Wilshire et al, that it doesn't matter that some participants were recovered on the physical function or the fatigue outcomes at baseline because there were other recovery criteria. This is truly a bizarre response for researchers to make. It is also a serious violation of the rules of honest scientific inquiry. It is unclear to me why we all have to waste so much intellectual time and energy simply to demonstrate that studies in which participants can be disabled and recovered simultaneously on key indicators should never have been published and, once published, need to be retracted immediately. The PACE authors have no scientific ground to stand on.

MORE @ Observantonline, the journal of the University of Maastricht