BBC: Chronic fatigue trial results 'not robust', new study says

I rather hope this all points to the mainstream media finally deciding the BSP narrative is fake news, and they'd better jump ship before they get dragged down with it. I'm afraid my opinion of most newspapers is that they peddle whatever they think supports the winning - and thereby most lucrative - side; public opinion tarts basically. The encouraging thing here is they look to be dumping the side they have been so strongly supporting until very recently.

 

I must have missed that along the way. Not only bad science, just ... not science at all.

 

I don't usually click on Daily Mail links but you have convinced me to do so in this case. Though I don't rate my chances of convincing Paul Dacre of anything that requires compassion for other people!

 

My daughter's year head emailed yesterday( at 07.21)
She has not been at school for 2 years. Ostensibly he was emailing as A had transferred to adult services in NHS and he was enquiring re consultant details , but he knew this happened in January .

He had seen the BBC article and perhaps a penny dropped.

I emailed back with the details, and added that a huge issue is that noone tells you that these forms of treatment can do harm . Ended with links to virology blog and Jane Colby' s tweet.

 

What was the tweet you shared?

 

The one posted here previously. A taste of the alternative reality. My daughter is wrll named.
https://twitter.com/user/status/976589454285725697

 

By the way it' s not my child- my post reads badly.

 

Thanks for posting this, @Eagles.

Actually, its not too bad as a defence of the PACE trial - given that its tough to make an argument here to save it. Some of the points are actually reasonable:

The first bit is true - we did use a tough method of correction. We could have used 3 comparisons.

However, the second bit of that sentence is blindingly stupid - 52 weeks is the primary endpoint of the trial. It's the primary endpoint. It's the PRIMARY endpoint.

We could have presented odds ratios (obviously not confidence intervals, they're only for continuous data). But this isn't what you said you'd do in the protocol. We did what you originally said you'd do. That was the whole point.

Well, I don't think that's defensible. We carefully examined every published statement made in justification of the changes. No more can be expected, especially not from such a hostile group. Look what it took to get that little data sample we worked on - imagine trying to get them to actually answer our questions!

Translation: even if our study wasn't that impressive, there's all those great other positive studies out there.

Are you referring to the previous, lower-quality poorly controlled studies that gave inflated effects due to their lack of appropriate controls - the ones you were trying to supersede with your better controlled "definitive" study? Its a bit disappointing to be back there in 2007 again. Alas that's the way of artefactual effects in Psychology. The more you control against them, the more they disappear!

For me, I love a good academic argument. Its the stuff that moves science forward. This defence is not a bad effort, but pretty easy to counter. I wish I had a cleverer adversary. That would be much more fun.

 

Oh, I forgot this gem:

Yes @Barry, this was a curious move to make. It is indeed an admission. What on earth do they think the published protocol was for? Just helping them think through a few ideas? Its perplexing. And whatever poor the state of the researchers' knowledge was at that time, they've had plenty of chances to learn the proper procedures since then, and address the problem.

This defence "We've been doing. it like this for years" comes up quite a lot in Psychology and mental health research. "Everybody does it". It doesn't really matter how many people do it like that. The point is to fix what you do when you find out how to do it right.

For me, this is not about the PACE researchers (although I understand you all have good reason to feel quite strongly about them!). This is about bad research being used to support claims that harm people. So the researchers' excuses for not doing it right are not really of interest to me. I just want to see it done right.

 

I personally feel rather flattered...

 

Wonder why comments disabled. I looked for it on their website under health and couldnt find it though older articles were there.

 

Clever adversaries would stear well clear of defending the indefensible.

 

Yes the statement is like still pushing conversion therapy for gay people and then just saying, "Oh, well ten years ago everyone thought it was a mental illness so no one saw any issue with the study design".

Or how about, "well back in 2004 no one understood leprosy so it was reasonable to design the trial in such a way that the conclusions would fit the belief that it was caused by demonic possession".

In defense of the BPS crowd they probably are as selective, stupid and incompetent now as they were ten years ago.

 

more:
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/n..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/uk_nat..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/new..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/nat..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/uk..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/nat..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/new..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/ne..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co...._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/n..._of_chronic_fatigue_study____not_reliable___/

eta: have only looked at a few but they all seem to have the same one comment,
anyone care to try and comment on one and see if it appears on all the others?