Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

Here's the tweet about apologising referred to above:

 

May i ask how Mike Godwin got involved in a twitter PACE debate?

 

Someone mentioned 'the banality of evil' and Wessely tagged Mike Godwin (Godwin's law).

https://twitter.com/user/status/1005015724082057216

https://twitter.com/user/status/1006557665542262784

 

@Mike Godwin sums it up nicely.

 

No, the theory and the hypothesis are two different things.

The theory - the theoretical framework which was used to derive the predictions with regard to CBT and GET - was that ME is caused by the mistaken belief that you are ill, which becomes further compounded by too much symptom focussing and also deconditioning due to fearful avoidance of activity.

The hypothesis is that patients in the CBT (or GET) trial arm will self-report less fatigue and greater physical function than a control group after 52 week.

The experiment tests the hypothesis. The hypothesis can potentially be disconfirmed. However, the experiment does not directly test the theory, because there is an added layer of assumptions between theory and hypothesis - which are about how you might best intervene to reverse the patient's fears and beliefs. If the assumptions you make here are wrong - for example, if you don't use the right technique, or don't give enough sessions or whatever - then you could get a null result, without your underlying theory necessarily being wrong.

So yes, technicially, a trial does not test a theory, not directly anyway. It tests a hypothesis derived from that theory. So all you can say about the behaviour/deconditioning theory from PACE is that the results didn't lend a lot of support for it. Even if all ther outcomes were negative, that would only falsify the hypothesis, it would not falsify the theory.

Edit: Sorry, @Jonathan Edwards, re-reading your post, I think this was exactly your point!

 

Is this falsifiable? Would you say that it has been falsified by any studies?

I know there was one study that found belief in viral cause vs belief in psychological cause were associated with similar outcomes.

Then there's the CPET literature which supports the belief that there exists an unusual physiological response to exertion.

 

We all do it. This is why this forum is so useful. We bang ideas about enough to shake out all the dust of cross-purpose misconception in the end.

 

There's also the fear avoidance theory, according to which it's more the belief that exertion causes deterioration, and that postexertional symptom exacerbation means harm and illness. The PEM and CPET literature seems to have explicitly disproved this, but that's just my view.

Whether the false illness beliefs and fear avoidance theories can be disproved, and how to do so, is an excellent question for PACE authors.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1007278073010704385


I rolled about the floor laughing at this one (the tweet at the top). Sweet man, he truly believes Wessely is interested hearing views on this issue that conflict with his own! Absolutely priceless!

 

I would be cautious about characterising the underlying hypothetical model as a "theory" or "theoretical framework" in discourse.

 

Should they not first have gone back a stage further and looked for evidence which would refute the conjecture about fear of exercise being a contributory factor in the illness? There is plenty of evidence from the stories told on this site that, for many people, no such belief existed and that they continued exercising until having no alternative but to stop.

Whatever group of patients they were seeing there must have been some stories which should have caused doubts. But we did hear from Reviewer 2 that taking histories was not perhaps the strongest aspect of the team's practice.

 

The reason they are not good at listening to patients is probably because they decided very early on that patients suffer from a functional somatic syndrome that involves false and/or delusional beliefs about the nature of their illness. What patients say then becomes very easy to ignore.

 

Do you think the idea unworthy of the title theory? Do you prefer model, idea, just plain framework, or something else? I'm happy to go with whatever word you feel most suitable in this instance. The key point is how it differs from the study hypothesis (hypotheses).

 

Exactly this. It is insufficiently substantiated to be described as theory, and I wouldn't credit it as such.

Would "model" or "framework" prefaced by "hypothetical" be adequately distinct in your view? I think it's important to make it clear that the fear avoidance etc model of ME is itself hypothesis.

 

A narrative?

 

I think we used "model" in the paper. Putting "hypothetical" in front would be confusing, for the very reasons we've been talking about there. It confuses the idea that inspired the hypotheses being tested with the actual fully operationalised hypotheses themselves.

In psychology, to avoid this kind of confusion, we tend to only use "hypotheses" for the fully operationalised version(s) of the prediction(s), the ones that are actually put to the test statistically.

 

"Thesis" would be apt. Maybe confusing when floating around with "hypothesis", though. Perhaps "premise".

 

Yes, if the hypotheses had been well supported, that would have provided positive support for the model. No question. It just doesn't work the same way for disconfirmation. Because people could fail to change for so many reasons - perhaps the therapists were not nice enough, there weren't enough sessions, their beliefs were too entrenched, etc.