PACE Self Owns

Alvin

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
In a continuation of the ideas from the PACE intimidation thread this thread is about times PACE pushers shot themselves in the foot
One example that comes to mind is the Sharpe-Godwin incident

From the start, one of my strategies for this PACE-debunking project was to draw in outside experts–people with no ax to grind and no pre-conceived notions about the trial and its methodology–and encourage them to scrutinize the matter. It was telling that many well-regarded scientists and researchers were willing to make scathing public comments about PACE and the related claims being made by the CBT/GET ideological brigades. When Bruce Levin, a professor of biostatistics at Columbia, calls something “the height of clinical trial amateurism,” people should pay attention and stop maligning PACE critics as being irrational, anti-science or vexatious.

That’s why I’m delighted that Simon Wessely himself, in a recent Twitter exchange, invited Mike Godwin, an American attorney and social commentator, to review the PACE trial controversy. After scrutinizing the published record, including the PACE research and the special issue of the Journal of Health Psychology dedicated to the issue, Godwin pronounced PACE to be “so profoundly flawed that it cannot be trusted.” In response, Sir Simon attempted to re-direct the narrative, reiterating his own positive beliefs about the trial. What he fails to understand is that, despite his knighthood and his widely hailed courage in “standing up for science,” his beliefs and opinions are irrelevant here. In this case, the facts are what count.
http://www.virology.ws/2018/06/18/trial-by-error-sir-simon-scores-an-own-goal/

Any other examples?
 
I wonder why Larun felt threatened by a critical article about a study that she wasn’t involved with.

This is indeed interesting. It makes it look as if she had a very vested interest in the conclusion of her review. It fits, perhaps, with the frontispiece of her PhD where she says how wonderful she thinks physio is.

For me the most obvious faux pas was when Peter White presented at CMRC in 2014. He did not seem to realise that a diatribe against patients criticising his work might not go down too well with a real scientific audience. Especially when his description of the work was so sketchy that we could not judge whether or not the criticism was justified.

There was also the episode when Dr Sharpe accused me of being disloyal to a colleague, when of course he should have realised that our loyalty as doctors is to patients, not colleagues.

And then the episode when Simon Wessely expressed surprise that I should say that unblinded trials with subjective endpoints were invalid. He pointed out that many trials with subjective endpoints are sound and many unblinded trails are sound - thereby demonstrating that he did not understand that it is only the combination of the two that matters, because there is no need to blind when endpoints are objective.

And finally there is the 2008 paper by Knoop et al (including White) that says that CBT works the same way as a placebo and that there is no significant placebo effect in ME. Which of course predicts that CBT does not work in ME. (Which of course may be right.)
 
I love the first one--Mike Godwin. But Professor Sharpe also tweeted out a Guardian essay about denialism in science. Then it turned out the author--also an academic--had suffered for ME for a decade and had previously written about the flaws of the psychiatric model of the illness. then I touched base with him and he signed one of the open letters.
 
I love the first one--Mike Godwin. But Professor Sharpe also tweeted out a Guardian essay about denialism in science. Then it turned out the author--also an academic--had suffered for ME for a decade and had previously written about the flaws of the psychiatric model of the illness. then I touched base with him and he signed one of the open letters.
Oops. :D
 
I love the first one--Mike Godwin. But Professor Sharpe also tweeted out a Guardian essay about denialism in science. Then it turned out the author--also an academic--had suffered for ME for a decade and had previously written about the flaws of the psychiatric model of the illness. then I touched base with him and he signed one of the open letters.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/03/denialism-what-drives-people-to-reject-the-truth



http://www.virology.ws/2018/08/15/trial-by-error-the-bps-brigades-score-another-own-goal/
 
Back
Top Bottom