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

Response: Sharpe, Goldsmith and Chalder fail to restore confidence in the PACE trial findings

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Tom Kindlon, Mar 26, 2019.

Tags:
Page 1 of 3
  1. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,203
    This open access rejoinder officially came out today. I thought I would highlight it in its own thread.

    https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-019-0296-x

     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019
    Tom Kindlon, Mar 26, 2019
    #1
    Invisible Woman, Lidia, TiredSam and 71 others like this.
  2. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,203
    Tom Kindlon, Mar 26, 2019
    #2
    NelliePledge, Arnie Pye, Mithriel and 33 others like this.
  3. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,444
    Location:
    London, UK
    Neat title!
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Mar 26, 2019
    #3
    NelliePledge, Carolyn Wilshire, ladycatlover and 21 others like this.
  4. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,252
    Thank you Tom and Carolyn.
     
    Hoopoe, Mar 26, 2019
    #4
    Invisible Woman, NelliePledge, WillowJ and 30 others like this.
  5. Obermann

    Obermann Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    124
    Location:
    Stockholm
    Well argued response, Tom and Carolyn. :)
    I am sure that even Professor Sharpe will see the light! ;)
     
    Obermann, Mar 26, 2019
    #5
    Invisible Woman, Nellie, Carolyn Wilshire and 16 others like this.
  6. EzzieD

    EzzieD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    UK
    I suspect that will only happen when pigs learn to fly, hee hee. :D
     
    EzzieD, Mar 26, 2019
    #6
    Invisible Woman, NelliePledge, JemPD and 16 others like this.
  7. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,228
    Terrific reply.
     
    dave30th, Mar 26, 2019
    #7
    Invisible Woman, RuthT, JemPD and 18 others like this.
  8. Joel

    Joel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    941
    Location:
    UK
    Brutal response. I'd throw in the towel if I was them.
    [​IMG]
     
    Joel, Mar 26, 2019
    #8
    daftasabrush, Carolyn Wilshire, ladycatlover and 13 others like this.
  9. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,317
    Thank you.
     
    Amw66, Mar 26, 2019
    #9
    Invisible Woman, rvallee, Nellie and 13 others like this.
  10. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    No ... not even then.
     
    Barry, Mar 26, 2019
    #10
    JemPD, Carolyn Wilshire, JaneL and 8 others like this.
  11. James Morris-Lent

    James Morris-Lent Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    United States
    Wait a second, you're not supposed to say that!

    __________

    Such a clearly-written reply. Well done :)
     
    James Morris-Lent, Mar 26, 2019
    #11
    Invisible Woman, Hutan, andypants and 22 others like this.
  12. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,486
    Location:
    UK
    That does read as they adjusted the thresholds to meet their needs. And we should remember that the Wilshire definition was their definition before they saw the data.
     
    Adrian, Mar 26, 2019
    #12
    Invisible Woman, WillowJ, ukxmrv and 25 others like this.
  13. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    Great response!
     
    Lucibee, Mar 26, 2019
    #13
    Hutan, andypants, hinterland and 17 others like this.
  14. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,155
    Location:
    Australia
    So why make the changes, and then defend them so ferociously, if they are of no significance?

    So the changes do make a significant difference? Make up your minds. :rolleyes:

    The whole damn point of PACE was to test those previous results and clinical experience. The PACE authors themselves called PACE "definitive". That was the basis on which they pitched PACE to the funding and approval bodies.

    Also, clinical opinion is the lowest ranking in the formal evidence hierarchy. It is meaningless in the context of a (supposedly) rigorous clinical trial.
     
    Sean, Mar 27, 2019
    #14
    Invisible Woman, Hutan, ukxmrv and 24 others like this.
  15. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,187
    Location:
    UK
    It's a thing of beauty. I'm so glad this is now published.
     
    Skycloud, Mar 27, 2019
    #15
    Invisible Woman, Hutan, ukxmrv and 18 others like this.
  16. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,218
    Location:
    UK
    I read it again and find myself wanting to quote loads of it here just to be able to say YES!!! each time. Since that would just produce a whole lot more for you to read, I'll just say one big

    YES!!!

    to the whole paper. And huge thanks to @Carolyn Wilshire and @Tom Kindlon for writing such a superb rebuttal of Sharpe's nonsense. No wonder he's so rattled he's blocking people who link to this paper on Twitter.
     
    Trish, Mar 27, 2019
    #16
    Invisible Woman, NelliePledge, Hutan and 36 others like this.
  17. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,444
    Location:
    London, UK
    I don't see how scientists can survive saying this in the long term:

    We prefer the definitions of recovery we used to those used by Wilshire et al. as they give absolute rates more consistent both with the literature, and with our clinical experience.
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Mar 27, 2019
    #17
    Invisible Woman, NelliePledge, Snow Leopard and 34 others like this.
  18. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,218
    Location:
    UK
    Nor can I. I was astonished when I read it - couldn't believe they could so blatantly make such an unscientific statement. Like a criminal admitting their crime openly, but too stupid to realise what they'd done.

    I loved the Wilshire and Kindlon response to it:

     
    Trish, Mar 27, 2019
    #18
    Snow Leopard, Hutan, WillowJ and 33 others like this.
  19. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    Simon Wessely had stated something similar in a comment under @Jrehmeyer article in statnews (edit, in 2016):
    https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-pace-trial/comment-page-6/#comments
    (page 2 of comments)

    It was really puzzling that he didn't realise how such a statement was revealing of their conception of "science".
    But it was in an internet comment.
    Now Sharpe et al. are claiming that in an academic journal. How can they not see that this is a non scientific statement?
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
    Cheshire, Mar 27, 2019
    #19
    Invisible Woman, Hutan, inox and 31 others like this.
  20. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,444
    Location:
    London, UK
    So, we have the perfect storm:

    Risk of expectation bias is high in unblinded trials.
    Risk is expected to be higher for ME, because of the nature of the relevant endpoints.
    Risk is expected to be exceptionally high for CBT since cognitive bias is part of the treatment.
    Risk is expected to be off scale if the investigators do not understand the purpose of a scientific experiment - to challenge expectations.
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Mar 27, 2019
    #20
    Invisible Woman, Woolie, Snow Leopard and 31 others like this.
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page