"A new properly scientific framework for the understanding of MUS/MECFS is urgently needed, grounded in the biological bases of the illnesses. The psychosomatic focus on CBT and GET for MUS and MECFS has delayed scientific understanding of the disorders by 25 to 30 years."
Doctor Speedy and ME in search of medical honesty
Showing posts with label EXERCISE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EXERCISE. Show all posts
Thursday, June 10, 2021
Monday, October 14, 2019
Work Rehabilitation and Medical Retirement for ME/CFS Patients. A Review and Appraisal of Diagnostic Strategies
Work Rehabilitation and Medical Retirement for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients. A Review and Appraisal of Diagnostic Strategies
by 
Mark Vink 1,*
and Friso Vink-Niese 2
Mark Vink 1,* and Friso Vink-Niese 2
1
Family and Insurance Physician, 1096 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Independent Researcher, 49032 Osnabrück, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2019, 9(4), 124; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9040124
Received: 7 June 2019 / Revised: 11 September 2019 / Accepted: 13 September 2019 / Published: 20 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomedical Insights that Inform the Diagnosis of ME/CFS)
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome leads to severe functional impairment and work disability in a considerable number of patients. The majority of patients who manage to continue or return to work, work part-time instead of full time in a physically less demanding job. The prognosis in terms of returning to work is poor if patients have been on long-term sick leave for more than two to three years. Being older and more ill when falling ill are associated with a worse employment outcome. Cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy do not restore the ability to work. Consequently, many patients will eventually be medically retired depending on the requirements of the retirement policy, the progress that has been made since they have fallen ill in combination with the severity of their impairments compared to the sort of work they do or are offered to do. However, there is one thing that occupational health physicians and other doctors can do to try and prevent chronic and severe incapacity in the absence of effective treatments. Patients who are given a period of enforced rest from the onset, have the best prognosis. Moreover, those who work or go back to work should not be forced to do more than they can to try and prevent relapses, long-term sick leave and medical retirement. View Full-Text
Keywords: CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome); ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis); medical retirement; prognosis; work rehabilitation
Friday, November 11, 2016
The inaugural Dr. Speedy health award goes to ...
The inaugural Dr. Speedy health award for a lifetime dedication to improving the health and quality of life for people with ME/CFS goes to a man who has taken on the mighty Pinocchio Psychiatrists; a fight based on scientific evidence, an essential part of modern day evidence based medicine against people who have ignored all scientific evidence for decades (even if they have produced it themselves) and have made a fortune out of opinion, non evidence-based medicine .
And the winner is, yes yes yes, Tom Kindlon. Congratulations Tom from everybody at the Dr. Speedy Network of Clinical Excellence, a well-deserved award.
PS: Please do not confuse us with NICE from the UK: the National Institute of ignoring Clinical Evidence
And the winner is, yes yes yes, Tom Kindlon. Congratulations Tom from everybody at the Dr. Speedy Network of Clinical Excellence, a well-deserved award.
PS: Please do not confuse us with NICE from the UK: the National Institute of ignoring Clinical Evidence
Monday, October 3, 2016
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Saturday, October 1, 2016
Friday, September 30, 2016
Classical case of projection: PACE trial's Peter White accuses Prof Stark and Levin and Matthees, Kindlon and Maryhew of scientific misconduct
Classical case of projection: PACE trial's Peter White accuses Prof Stark and Levin and Matthees, Kindlon and Maryhew of scientific misconduct. And at the same time he still claims that 22% of patients with this disease recover due to CBT and GET; Pinocchio Psychiatry at its best. That and More in today's Guardian; article by Peter himself:
"Our research, and that of our colleagues in this field, has attracted its fair share of criticism. Some campaigners have even called for the research to be stopped, the findings retracted, and CBT and GET abandoned completely as they cause harm. One recent focus of criticism has been whether CBT and GET can actually bring about recovery or remission from the illness, not just reduce the symptoms. And by recovery we mean recovery from a patient’s present episode of illness – which is not necessarily the same as being cured, as someone might fall ill again.
To address this we did another test on the data, and found that 22% of people could be considered as recovered with either CBT or GET. Though not a large proportion it was about three times more than the recovery rates achieved by the other two treatments. Other studies showed similar proportions recovering after CBT.
"In the latest step in this saga, a blog that hasn’t gone through the rigours of scientific peer-review, or being published in a journal claims that CBT and GET are not as effective as we reported. The authors got their figures by tweaks such as increasing the pass-grade for what counted as recovery, and excluding patients who had reported themselves as “much better”."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/30/me-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-patients-suffer-put-off-treatments-our-research
PS: A review of the PACE trial by Vink, that has gone through the rigours of scientific peer-review, and was published in a Medical journal found that CBT and GET are INEFFECTIVE, aka a NULL effect. You can read the excellent PACE trial review here
PS 2: I hope that somewhere in the UK there is still a psychologist who hasn't gone to sleep to give PACE trial's Peter White emergency CBT to cure his false Therapy beliefs and turn him into an honest psychiatrist
"Our research, and that of our colleagues in this field, has attracted its fair share of criticism. Some campaigners have even called for the research to be stopped, the findings retracted, and CBT and GET abandoned completely as they cause harm. One recent focus of criticism has been whether CBT and GET can actually bring about recovery or remission from the illness, not just reduce the symptoms. And by recovery we mean recovery from a patient’s present episode of illness – which is not necessarily the same as being cured, as someone might fall ill again.
To address this we did another test on the data, and found that 22% of people could be considered as recovered with either CBT or GET. Though not a large proportion it was about three times more than the recovery rates achieved by the other two treatments. Other studies showed similar proportions recovering after CBT.
"In the latest step in this saga, a blog that hasn’t gone through the rigours of scientific peer-review, or being published in a journal claims that CBT and GET are not as effective as we reported. The authors got their figures by tweaks such as increasing the pass-grade for what counted as recovery, and excluding patients who had reported themselves as “much better”."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/30/me-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-patients-suffer-put-off-treatments-our-research
PS: A review of the PACE trial by Vink, that has gone through the rigours of scientific peer-review, and was published in a Medical journal found that CBT and GET are INEFFECTIVE, aka a NULL effect. You can read the excellent PACE trial review here
PS 2: I hope that somewhere in the UK there is still a psychologist who hasn't gone to sleep to give PACE trial's Peter White emergency CBT to cure his false Therapy beliefs and turn him into an honest psychiatrist
Monday, September 26, 2016
Saturday, September 24, 2016
PACE trial's principal investigator Peter White has retired from clinical practice with immediate effect to avoid ...
PROOF POSITIVE ? (REVISITED)
Margaret Williams, 14th September 2016
"The role of Professor Peter Denton White OBE
In 2004, Professor Peter Denton White was awarded an OBE for “services to medical education”;
notices circulating at the time proclaimed him as leading the research into “CFS/ME” and said his OBE was “a well-deserved honour and acknowledgement of his contribution to work on CFS/ME”.
He was born in November 1952: aged only 64, he suddenly retired from clinical practice just before he was compelled by an order of the court to release the raw data from the PACE trial, so any
investigation by the General Medical Council for alleged professional misconduct is unlikely to be
pursued, but is he guilty of misfeasance in public office?
According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) website, misfeasance in public office is a cause of
action in the civil court against the holder of public office, the allegation being that the office-holder
has misused or abused their power: such misuse or abuse is an affirmative act that causes harm to
another party without reasonable justification. The NHS is a State body as it provides public health
care, so this matter is one in which the public has a significant interest.
Facts to be considered
1. Peter White has used his own money, as well charitable money and public money, in order to
lobby support for his belief that ME/CFS is a psycho-behavioural disorder that can be
overcome through “cognitive restructuring” and graded aerobic exercise
2. he has egregiously used large sums of public money (£250,000) to prevent the disclosure of
data that would falsify his belief
3. for nearly 30 years, he has ignored evidence that disproves his belief, including evidence from
his own trials
4. he has failed to correct errors of fact after being alerted to them
5. he has consistently failed to disclose significant financial, institutional and ideological
conflicts of interest
6. he has been in breach of his NHS contractual obligations in that he has persistently ignored
mandatory directives and has wilfully encouraged other clinicians to do the same
7. as a consequence of his actions:
money which should have been used for biomedical research into the aetiology of
ME/CFS has been diverted to fund studies into therapies which were already known
to be ineffective and even harmful
patients have been stigmatised as sociopaths and malingerers who refuse to accept
they have a behavioural disorder
patients have been denied financial support from private insurers for whom Peter
White and his colleagues work (for example, he was Chief Medical Officer for the
giant re-insurer Swiss Re and was also CMO to Scottish Provident) and from the" ...
Proof positive (revisited) .pdf
Friday, September 23, 2016
Thursday, August 18, 2016
OMG: Prof Chalder admits that they made up the death threats themself to ridicule patients
Prof Chalder admits that they made up the death threats to ridicule patients in trying to make sure that the PACEtrial data doesn't get released. Therefore it doesn't take a genius to conclude that the data is much worse than what they have presented and published because if it would have backed up their claims they would have long shared it ...
P 36 @ informationtribunal.gov.uk
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Friday, April 8, 2016
Published, independent review of the PACE trial
The PACE Trial Invalidates the Use of Cognitive Behavioral and Graded Exercise Therapy in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Review
Corresponding author: Vink, Family Physician, Soerabaja Research Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E-mail: markvink.md@outlook.com
Abstract
The main findings reported in the PACE trial were that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) were moderately effective treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), and fear avoidance beliefs constituted the strongest mediator of both therapies. These findings have been challenged by patients and, more recently, a number of top scientists, after public health expert Tuller, highlighted methodological problems in the trial. As a doctor who has been bedridden with severe ME for a long period, I analyzed the PACE trial and its follow-up articles from the perspectives of a doctor and a patient. During the PACE trial the eligibility criteria, both subjective primary outcomes, and most of the recovery criteria were altered, creating an overlap of the eligibility and recovery criteria; consequently, 13% of patients were considered “recovered,” with respect to 1 or 2 primary outcomes, as soon as they entered the trial. In addition, 46% of patients reported an increase in ME/CFS symptoms, 31% reported musculoskeletal and 19% reported neurological adverse events. Therefore the proportion negatively affected by CBT and GET would be between 46% and 96%, most likely estimated at 74%, as shown in a large survey recently conducted by the ME Association. Medication with such high rates of adverse events would be withdrawn with immediate effect. There was no difference in long-term outcomes between adaptive pacing therapy, CBT, GET and specialist medical care, and none of them were effective, invalidating the biopsychosocial model and use of CBT and GET for ME/CFS. The discovery that an increase in exercise tolerance did not lead to an increase in fitness means that an underlying physical problem prevented this; validates that ME/CFS is a physical disease and that none of the treatments studied addressed this issue.
FULL article in Journal of Neurology and Neurobiology
Thursday, March 24, 2016
#PACEtrial Psychiatry is much worse than #DiederikStapel psychology: Two great articles about the seriously flawed PACE trial
Two great articles about the seriously flawed PACE trial
Editorial: On PACE by Trevor Butterworth, Mar 21, 2016: "And the thing about patients who either suffer from a rare disease, or a more common and inexplicable one as with ME/CFS, is that they are usually a formidable resource—a network of distributed experts who have sifted and weighed the scientific research with the kind of avidity you would expect, given that their lives depended on it. In pharmacology, rare disease patient groups are highly respected and are seen as partners in research rather than just subjects and consumers of studies."
MORE @ stats.org
AND
PACE: The research that sparked a patient rebellion and challenged medicine by Professor Rebecca Goldin, Mar 21, 2016 :
"The results from PACE (including these) have been published in prestigious journals and influenced public health recommendations around the world; and yet, unraveling this design and the characterization of the outcomes of the trial has left many people, including me, unsure this study has any scientific merit. How did the study go unchallenged for five years? And how could journalists have recognized the problems before reporting unqualified, but unjustified, good news?"
MORE @ stats.org
Editorial: On PACE by Trevor Butterworth, Mar 21, 2016: "And the thing about patients who either suffer from a rare disease, or a more common and inexplicable one as with ME/CFS, is that they are usually a formidable resource—a network of distributed experts who have sifted and weighed the scientific research with the kind of avidity you would expect, given that their lives depended on it. In pharmacology, rare disease patient groups are highly respected and are seen as partners in research rather than just subjects and consumers of studies."
MORE @ stats.org
AND
PACE: The research that sparked a patient rebellion and challenged medicine by Professor Rebecca Goldin, Mar 21, 2016 :
"The results from PACE (including these) have been published in prestigious journals and influenced public health recommendations around the world; and yet, unraveling this design and the characterization of the outcomes of the trial has left many people, including me, unsure this study has any scientific merit. How did the study go unchallenged for five years? And how could journalists have recognized the problems before reporting unqualified, but unjustified, good news?"
MORE @ stats.org
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Nice explanation of PACE trial nonsense and Wessely psychiatry
Nice explanation of PACEtrial nonsense and Wessely psychiatry by @dwbarlow:
"If the only tool you have is a hammer you tend to see every problem as a nail"
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Dr Esther Crawley acknowledges in the MAGENTA protocol that ME/CFS patients will not benefit from graded exercise therapy
The MAGENTA trial aka the PACEtrial for children involves "Children between 8 and 17 years old who have been diagnosed with CFS/ME." So they will be experimenting and using their unethical and harmful treatment on 8 year olds ...
"The aim of this study is to find out how successful and cost-effective GET is ... in children" with ME/CFS.We do know that subjective outcomes are not reliable so what does the magenta trial use? "The children and their parents are then interviewed in order to judge how well the treatment is working." So no objective measures are used as usual ... However the principal investigator of this trial also writes that "What are the possible benefits and risks of participating? Participants will not benefit directly from taking part in the study" which means that children with ME/CFS who are getting treated with GET will not benefit from it ... Why waste a million £££ on it if she already knows that the treatment doesn't work ?? If you don't know the answer to that question just read on or scroll down ...
Furthermore GET causes severe relapses if patients do have ME/CFS unless the diagnosis is wrong or people are in remission which happens in 5 to 7% but even they have to be careful with exercise therapy. So if you subject people with ME/CFS to exercise therapy you are basically torturing patients. Yet what do they write in the protocol? "it may prove enjoyable contributing to the research. There are no risks of participating in the study."So if you acknowledge that the treatment doesn't work like the principal investigator Dr Esther Crawley is doing in the protocol then you are basically wasting shedloads of money to make sure that people with this debilitating neuroimmune disease do not get proper treatment; shameful doctoring as usual from the denial Brigade who have been ignoring evidence for decades. And according to medical boards doctors should not ignore evidence which goes against the duties of a doctor ... Which means that the denial Brigade should be suspended or struck off ...
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Research by Chalder et al. shows why the trick of using the Oxford criteria in the PACE trial did not work
Research by Chalder et al. shows why the trick of using the Oxford criteria ( so that patients could be included who do not have the disease, ie including patients with depression and other psychiatric disorders and not ME/CFS) in the ME/CFS PACE trial did not improve outcomes ie did not work
@ BMJ:
Research
Facilitated physical activity as a treatment for depressed adults: randomised controlled trial BMJ 2012; 344 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2758 (Published 06 June 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e2758 * Melanie Chalder, research fellow1 , * Nicola J Wiles, senior lecturer1 , * John Campbell, professor2 , * Sandra P Hollinghurst, senior lecturer1 , * Anne M Haase, senior lecturer3 , * Adrian H Taylor, professor4 , * Kenneth R Fox, professor3 , * Ceire Costelloe, research associate1 , * Aidan Searle, research associate1 , * Helen Baxter, research associate1 , * Rachel Winder, associate research fellow2 , * Christine Wright, associate research fellow2 , * Katrina M Turner, lecturer1 , * Michael Calnan, professor5 , * Deborah A Lawlor, professor1 , * Tim J Peters, professor6 , * Deborah J Sharp, professor1 , * Alan A Montgomery, reader1 , * Glyn Lewis, professor1 Author affiliations *
Correspondence to: M Chaldermelanie.chalder@bristol.ac.uk *
Accepted 22 March 2012
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of facilitated physical activity as an adjunctive treatment for adults with depression presenting in primary care.
Design
Pragmatic, multicentre, two arm parallel randomised controlled trial. Setting General practices in Bristol and Exeter. Participants 361 adults aged 18-69 who had recently consulted their general practitioner with symptoms of depression. All those randomised had a diagnosis of an episode of depression as assessed by the clinical interview schedule-revised and a Beck depression inventory score of 14 or more.
Interventions
In addition to usual care, intervention participants were offered up to three face to face sessions and 10 telephone calls with a trained physical activity facilitator over eight months. The intervention was based on theory and aimed to provide individually tailored support and encouragement to engage in physical activity.
Main outcome measures
The primary outcome was self reported symptoms of depression, assessed with the Beck depression inventory at four months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes included use of antidepressants and physical activity at the four, eight, and 12 month follow-up points, and symptoms of depression at eight and 12 month follow-up.
Results
There was no evidence that participants offered the physical activity intervention reported improvement in mood by the four month follow-up point compared with those in the usual care group; adjusted between group difference in mean Beck depression inventory score −0.54 (95% confidence interval −3.06 to 1.99; P=0.68). Similarly, there was no evidence that the intervention group reported a change in mood by the eight and 12 month follow-up points. Nor was there evidence that the intervention reduced antidepressant use compared with usual care (adjusted odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 2.06; P=0.44) over the duration of the trial. However, participants allocated to the intervention group reported more physical activity during the follow-up period than those allocated to the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 3.89; P=0.003).
Conclusions
The addition of a facilitated physical activity intervention to usual care did not improve depression outcome or reduce use of antidepressants compared with usual care alone.
Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16900744
@ BMJ:
Research
Facilitated physical activity as a treatment for depressed adults: randomised controlled trial BMJ 2012; 344 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2758 (Published 06 June 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e2758 * Melanie Chalder, research fellow1 , * Nicola J Wiles, senior lecturer1 , * John Campbell, professor2 , * Sandra P Hollinghurst, senior lecturer1 , * Anne M Haase, senior lecturer3 , * Adrian H Taylor, professor4 , * Kenneth R Fox, professor3 , * Ceire Costelloe, research associate1 , * Aidan Searle, research associate1 , * Helen Baxter, research associate1 , * Rachel Winder, associate research fellow2 , * Christine Wright, associate research fellow2 , * Katrina M Turner, lecturer1 , * Michael Calnan, professor5 , * Deborah A Lawlor, professor1 , * Tim J Peters, professor6 , * Deborah J Sharp, professor1 , * Alan A Montgomery, reader1 , * Glyn Lewis, professor1 Author affiliations *
Correspondence to: M Chaldermelanie.chalder@bristol.ac.uk *
Accepted 22 March 2012
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of facilitated physical activity as an adjunctive treatment for adults with depression presenting in primary care.
Design
Pragmatic, multicentre, two arm parallel randomised controlled trial. Setting General practices in Bristol and Exeter. Participants 361 adults aged 18-69 who had recently consulted their general practitioner with symptoms of depression. All those randomised had a diagnosis of an episode of depression as assessed by the clinical interview schedule-revised and a Beck depression inventory score of 14 or more.
Interventions
In addition to usual care, intervention participants were offered up to three face to face sessions and 10 telephone calls with a trained physical activity facilitator over eight months. The intervention was based on theory and aimed to provide individually tailored support and encouragement to engage in physical activity.
Main outcome measures
The primary outcome was self reported symptoms of depression, assessed with the Beck depression inventory at four months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes included use of antidepressants and physical activity at the four, eight, and 12 month follow-up points, and symptoms of depression at eight and 12 month follow-up.
Results
There was no evidence that participants offered the physical activity intervention reported improvement in mood by the four month follow-up point compared with those in the usual care group; adjusted between group difference in mean Beck depression inventory score −0.54 (95% confidence interval −3.06 to 1.99; P=0.68). Similarly, there was no evidence that the intervention group reported a change in mood by the eight and 12 month follow-up points. Nor was there evidence that the intervention reduced antidepressant use compared with usual care (adjusted odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 2.06; P=0.44) over the duration of the trial. However, participants allocated to the intervention group reported more physical activity during the follow-up period than those allocated to the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 3.89; P=0.003).
Conclusions
The addition of a facilitated physical activity intervention to usual care did not improve depression outcome or reduce use of antidepressants compared with usual care alone.
Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16900744
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
PACE and geocentrism -- both on the wrong side of science
By ELLA Peregrine:
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 UK’s expensive and influential PACE trial. Those interested in the question of data sharing in research have been drawn in, because of the ongoing refusals by PACE researchers of requests for de-identified data to analyze. Last week quite a stir was raised when Nature published an argument for avoiding data sharing in which patients and scientists questioning the claims made by PACE authors were equated with tobacco industry supporters and climate change deniers. Although the editorial was not written by a member of the research group responsible for PACE, there are traceable connections between the authors.
Following their ongoing (and previously very effective) narrative of victimization and infallibility, the PACE defenders have made a quantum leap in their willingness to twist reality to serve their purposes. Climate change deniers and tobacco control opposition are funded by the deep pockets of industries under threat from emerging science, and represent the status quo of money and power in their respective fields. White, Chalder, Wessley and company have much more in common with climate change deniers (aka the fossil fuel industry) financially, culturally, and politically, than with the scientists desperately trying to illuminate an emergent and critical threat to life and health.
The PACE group has been buttressing up their version of reality for years, against substantive and copious emerging science showing that their stance is at best ineffective and at worst, extremely harmful. This has been done largely through unsubstantiated claims of being attacked or harassed, and never with purely objective findings. Their contention is that ME and/or CFS, (whichever disease they’re claiming to study at the time) are caused by “false illness beliefs” – that these diseases are primarily treatable with exercise and psychological training to ignore physical symptoms.
Further, their research outcomes are used to cement policy and public belief that prevents insurers, other researchers, the government, physicians and family members of the sick from looking beyond the psychological for etiology, treatment, or support. These claims and the way they are backed up by the medical, political, and insurance-industry establishment are causing untold suffering and costing patients their lives.
This idea that patients and scientists who question the strength and legitimacy of the PACE claims are somehow like the tobacco industry, though, it just had to be addressed. Finally, the appropriate analogy arose. This group of psychologists, without any actual proof that “false illness beliefs” can even be the cause of the disease called ME or CFS, they are like the Catholic Church in the time of Gallileo. They just “know” (believe!) that they’re right, and they’ve been telling everyone who will listen this same story for years, insistently, without even an iota of credible reflection on evidence to counter their belief. What's even more important, public policy is based on their “facts” – which are unassailable so long as they can keep those data hidden.
Ironically, despite their self-identification as scientists, they are behaving like the power structure of the church – trying to silence or excommunicate anyone who crosses them, and hiding evidence that their claim of divine knowledge may in fact be incorrect. But the church didn’t stand alone, and neither does this group. The government, the media, the insurance industry – all collude in this story-telling, this clinging to an incorrect belief in the face of mounting scientific (biomedical, not psychological) evidence.
If PACE has to be retracted, so will many other papers. A knighthood may be rescinded; high-paying insurance industry consulting fees may be lost. Expensive medical research will have to be funded, insurance companies and social support networks will have to acknowledge that the disability is legitimate, and patients will have to be treated with the respect and care that sufferers of diseases like cancer and MS receive. Their defensive clinging is to power, status, and money, not to truth. If they wanted truth, they’d release the data.
Eventually, as with Galileo, science will win. The question now is, how long will patients be left on the rack of medical neglect due to this rampant anti-science belief, and how many more will die, before the unscientific claims of PACE will be torn down?
We know the earth isn't the center of the solar system, and we know that exercise doesn’t cure people with ME. It’s just a matter of time before the power structure lets go of the second false belief.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
How sad is a 8 million dollar trial with an overlap in entry and recovery criteria
How sad is a 8 million dollar trial with an overlap in entry and recovery criteria
The PACE trial, a culmination of 25 yrs of ignoring evidence + telling nonsense about a debilitating physical disease. Promoting a NULL effect of CBT and GET as proof of sustained efficacy ...
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
PACE trial investigators basically acknowledge in the Lancet that CBT and GET are useless ...
PACE trial investigators acknowledge in Lancet response that CBT and GET are totally useless ...
Treatments used "offer practical hope of useful improvement" and this improvement is so big that people are still (severely) disabled after treatment. Yet they obviously ignore their own NULL effect by writing total nonsense. Wessely would say Same old same old ...
So basically their treatments offer hope but nothing else ... Hope for the therapists to earn money from ineffective and harmful treatments but no hope for the patients to get their health and independence back.
PACE trial investigators reply to well founded criticism by Twisk, 2 psychologist Professors James Coyne + Keith Laws and Dr. Charles Shepherd (ME Association)
@ http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpsy/PIIS2215-0366(16)00018-3.pdf
So they continue to defend the PACE trial with every weapon of communal stupidity as Robertson Davies would say
Treatments used "offer practical hope of useful improvement" and this improvement is so big that people are still (severely) disabled after treatment. Yet they obviously ignore their own NULL effect by writing total nonsense. Wessely would say Same old same old ...
So basically their treatments offer hope but nothing else ... Hope for the therapists to earn money from ineffective and harmful treatments but no hope for the patients to get their health and independence back.
PACE trial investigators reply to well founded criticism by Twisk, 2 psychologist Professors James Coyne + Keith Laws and Dr. Charles Shepherd (ME Association)
@ http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpsy/PIIS2215-0366(16)00018-3.pdf
So they continue to defend the PACE trial with every weapon of communal stupidity as Robertson Davies would say
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
The trial will be run by the trial co-ordinator who will be based at Barts and the London, with the principal investigator (PI), and alongside two of the six clinical centres. He/she will liaise regularly with staff at the Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) who themselves will be primarily responsible for randomisation and database design and management (overseen by the centre statistician Dr Tony Johnson), directed by Professor Simon Wessely, in collaboration with Professor Janet Darbyshire at the MRC CTU.
Prof Simon Wessely will oversee the CTU”
http://www.margaretwilliams.me