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

They seem utterly incapable of comprehending the most elementary issues - issues which should be so second nature to them they shouldn't even have to think about it. It's nothing to do with the bureaucracy. It's simply about ensuring trial authors don't get to choose the questions after they know, or have a very good inkling of, the answers.

 

Excellent .

 

Well done @sea .

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/977439413411221504

 

If anyone’s interested there is currently an offer: £3 for 3 months of The Times & The Sunday Times ‘The Digital Pack’.
https://store.thetimes.co.uk/special-offers/

 

I searched for instances of the word "psychological" in Wilshire, Kindlon et al's paper. I found one:

Instances of the word "psychology" were limited to the journal title BMC Psychology and Carolyn Wilshire's place of work.

This is another instance of legitimate critique of the evidence base for the efficacy of behavioural therapies in ME/CFS being recast as an attack on psychology.

 

Apparently he doesn't even have to read it to understand what it is _really_ about..
https://twitter.com/user/status/977445428651282432

 

"This is propaganda. I don’t have to read all their stuff to know to be skeptical."
pot kettle

 

Vogt is really just a cartoonist's exaggeration of the rest of the BPS crowd. A joke.

 

Vogt seems to think he is Charles 1st. All these dreadful common people threatening the divine right of make-believe. If the study is so good why are the attacks problematic? All the authors have to do is to respond with some reasonable answers. No sweat.

 

Not so funny for his ME/CFS patients - if he has any.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/977609492715143170

https://twitter.com/user/status/976771977234001920

 

Just found this on the net by Henrik Vogt: https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/henrik.vogt

It's a long article including "These problems, which are very common in General Practice and associated with much suffering and huge costs, are also often called “functional disorders” (as opposed to “organic”) or “psychosomatic”. Much exposed and debated examples are chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalopathy (CFS/ME), and what by the lay press, patient advocacy groups and some doctors has been called “chronic Lyme disease”. Why are these problems “medically unexplained” and how can we understand them?"

Maybe more can be found by searching, if anyone feels like it.

 

Yes indeed. By "a joke" I meant "a bad joke".

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/977658477341495296

@Carolyn Wilshire

 

Anyone can take that data set and run exactly the same calculations. There's nothing misleading about it. It's in an XLS sheet. You run the numbers against the original protocol, and they come out like that.

The whole point of the reanalysis is presenting the argument that the PACE Trial appears to be misleading and designed to yield the desired result.

Sharpe might as well have written "No!! You!!".

I mean seriously, we would love it, if GET&CBT worked. There's nothing to gain from being right about this. No-one's gonna get back their years lost to this disease, we'll never see a penny of compensation or anything like that.

Maybe we'll get slightly better healthcare while we wait for Science to come up with an answer and maybe a couple folks will get to live in marginally less penury.

 

"The reanalysis is misleading and designed to yield the desired result."



oh what a wit! what a card! how clever you are Mr Sharpe to make such a joke!

What sir? i beg your pardon? you weren't joking? nay sir, you must have been joking.... to accuse the reanalysis of being designed to yeild the desired result, when the desired result was to prove to the world that PACE was redesigned half way through in order to avoid it not yielding the undesired result, and appear to yield the desired one instead. hahaha pishposh sir you must have been joking, what a wonderful wit you are sir!

 

At which he is an expert of course.

 

Either Sharpe is a troll of the highest order or he lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the concept of irony. I genuinely have no idea which it is.

 

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.