1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 8th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

NICE guideline review: A list of appointees to the ME/CFS Guideline Committee has now been published

Discussion in '2020 UK NICE ME/CFS Guideline' started by Andy, Oct 16, 2018.

  1. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    A profound thank you for that intervention --- I needn't say it was coherent - you know that.

    The sooner we get away from defending crap science the better - we can then focus on trialling things that might help to improve the quality of peoples lives; i.e. trialling them in a way that demonstrates whether they work or not.
  2. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Fully agree. I think an apology to NICE is also due, for suggesting them to be so incompetent and naive as to be duped by any such prejudice. The point is that NICE have shown the ability and bottle to recognise any prejudice, from whatever quarter, and to not be bamboozled by it. The purveyors of such prejudice are finding that a bitter pill to swallow.
  3. Adam pwme

    Adam pwme Senior Member (Voting Rights)

  4. Robert 1973

    Robert 1973 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    For any newcomers, particularly those who have come to this thread from the Lancet, this is what Jonathan previously wrote about Peter White’s presentation:

    “The way I look at this stems from arriving at the 2014 CMRC meeting in Bristol and listening to Peter White give a 15 minute tirade on abusive patients attacking science. I was blown away by the sheer nastiness of the whole thing. The sneering and the disingenuous presentation of rotten data was something I had never seen before. I had seen something a bit like only once before at a rheumatology conference where a medic from the Hammersmith Hospital joked about patients dying. On that occasion uneasiness in the audience was palpable. In Bristol delegates either lapped up White's story or knew how to keep their cool because this was nothing new to them.”

  5. daftasabrush

    daftasabrush Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Simon Wessely designed the PACE trial, I believe there is evidence that his name was not used for ethics approval and White was used instead because with Wessely at the helm the protests would have been extremely loud. Despite being omitted from the list of authors, the original PACE study credits SW as a centre manager for one centre, with designing the trial, digging into details despite being a psychiatrist entirely invested in disbelieving patients or physical evidence Wessely also provided the Specialist medical treatment of the failed SSMC (sp?) branch, I think he was on the trial management group too? I could not find anything on ethics about standards for who should be included on the author list but omitting SW defies logic giving his substantial contribution to the disastrous trial. Let's not pretend White, Chalder and Sharpe as principal investigators were the only ones steering the ship to its foregone conclusion (as Wessely put it). Similarly, it also used Chalder Fatigue Scale which Chalder credits Wessely with proving the initial data for.
  6. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    PACE has Wessely's fingerprints all over it. I have no doubt he was a major and active influence on it from day one.
    bobbler, alktipping, MEMarge and 6 others like this.
  7. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Hutan, alktipping, Andy and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page