Rethinking the treatment of CFS — a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of GET and CBT (2018) Wilshire et al.

Excellent, thanks so much to all involved, to the healthy authors for coming to our aid and standing up for science and to the ME authors for giving so much of your limited energy to write this. Thinking of Bob x

 

Can't remember if the ME Association's (very good) press release has been posted:

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/201...are-not-statistically-reliable-22-march-2018/

https://twitter.com/user/status/976772287444774917

 

I appreciate the clarity in the writing of the research article itself as it gives some great quotable quotes to give busy doctors etc.
Thanks and congratulations all round.

 

https://www.actionforme.org.uk/news/​pace-update-latest-analysis-and-comment/

 

For comparison with the MEAs post
https://twitter.com/user/status/976775382190972928

 

Quite so, it's clearly and simply written, not trying to bamboozle readers any more than is necessary with scientific jargon.

 

Congratulations and thanks all round.

If readers wish to promote the study, an excellent way to do so is to link to the paper in posts on websites adding a little text to accompany the post. Use keywords like PACE, ME, CFS etc.

This creates a web leading to the paper, and is taken into account in search engine rankings. The higher the 'quality' of the site linking to the paper, the more likely it is to boost the rankings. (what 'quality' is, is generally unknown as is hidden by the search engine companies to avoid 'gaming' the results.)

It's a pretty good way to do activism in a way that is available to most.

If you need help in linking, reply to this post and I'll try to help out.

 

I found it more a regurgitation of the paper than a condemnatory personal comment in the way the Jon stones and comments usually are.

 

Science Media Centre
Expert reaction to reanalysis of the PACE trial for CFS treatments

Includes comments from dr. Jon Stone, prof. Chris Ponting and from Sharpe, Chalder, Kimberley Goldsmith

 

The Wilshire et al. paper is also covered in the print edition of today's Times – on page 2!

It's different to the online coverage. It's written by Tom Whipple, the science editor:

Findings of £5m ME study 'worthless'

A landmark £5 million study that formed the basis for NHS treatment of ME sufferers has been heavily criticised for its "troubling" use of data, in new research that claims its recommendations were largely worthless.

Since 2011 the estimated 250,000 Britons with ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, have been offered treatment based on exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy, after a study known as the Pace trial was published in The Lancet and seemed to show this approach improved symptoms.

Now, after a freedom of information request forced the scientists behind the 2011 study to release their raw data, other researchers have performed their own analysis. They said their study, published in the journal BMC Psychology, raised "serious concerns about the robustness of the claims" made about exercise and therapy.

Keith Geraghty, from the University of Manchester, said at the very least the £5 million trial represented wasted resources. "I would argue it could have been spent more wisely," he added.

The authors of the original Pace trial stood by their findings.
​

Very good, I think, especially considering the space restrictions - and I'm very pleased to see something like this so prominent in the paper.

 

Thanks to the authors.

 

Yep, mainstream media stories shouldn’t be scientific essays or no average member of the public will ever read any of it. Having these stories planting the seed of doubt out in the British mainstream media is fantastic and a huge achievement. Well done to everyone who got this out there!

 

The SMC's credibility on CFS has run out .

 

I saw the article on the BBC news front page at 9.45am and was surprised (astounded!) as I thought it would be another attack on ME patients. I went back at 10.15 to check some wording and discovered it had been removed to the health pages. Obviously the story that had run for 3 days about "Claire's Accessories and your childhood" was of more pressing importance.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/976793764776857600

 

It's on Boots too: https://www.m.webmd.boots.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20180322/cbt-for-me-cfs-questioned