Watt from MRC defends PACE in letter to Times

An excellent letter, @Jonathan Edwards, thank you. Perhaps it is time to re-send it and ask whether, perhaps, Prof Watt, being a busy person, may have overlooked it.

This is the paragraph which for me demonstrates the dire effect of PACE for our futures in the UK. Particularly the well made point that by palming all MUS patients, including ME, off on unqualified therapists with no medical knowledge or supervision, there will continue to be a complete lack of medical awareness of or interest in ME. If no consultant of any specialism ever sees ME patients, we are truly f***ed.

 

How pathetic.

So - she doesn't care, she's not bothered, she doesn't understand science, she believes the BPS model of ME, she has friends she doesn't want to upset, she doesn't want to rock the boat, ...

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1034026647421419520

 

How about this @Jonathan Edwards and others?

Sir,

We are surprised by Professor Watt's wholehearted and inaccurate defence of the PACE trial.

The trial steering committee contained members with a financial interest in the outcome of the trial and several others with an allegiance to the model underlying the interventions being tested. It had no independent researchers.

The peer-review for the main study was fast-tracked by The Lancet and there are doubts that such a long paper for such a large trial could have been properly reviewed in the time allowed. With so many people from so many institutions in such a small field involved in PACE, questions have been asked as to whether properly independent peer-reviewers could have been found.

When the question of hostility toward the researchers was raised in a First Tier Tribunal hearing to release some of the data under the FOIA, no examples could be given.

That a number of other researchers with the same beliefs in the effectiveness of the interventions have found similar results in smaller trials repeating the major flaws of PACE cannot be seen as endorsement of its findings.

When the data from the trial have been reanalysed, no evidence has been found for the claims the interventions are effective. The trial findings have been rejected by every major institution in the USA, the international scientific community and in debate in Parliament. A number of universities now use it as an example of how not to conduct a research.

There are many questions raised by this massive failure, not least about the MRC's own role in the trial and the competence of its system of peer-review.

 

I hadn't realized her KCL connection. I think that must have played a role.

I also think we're seeing how the system works once a trial has been conducted and published: everything then swing in its favour as all the institutions involved have a massive interest in defending it, not least the MRC and The Lancet. It's their baby now so to speak. They would have to admit they stuffed up, so instead they just dig in. As we all know, it took 12 years for The Lancet to retract Wakefield.

 

I think Tom is right. How about a shortened version:

Sir,

We are surprised by Professor Watt's wholehearted and inaccurate defence of the PACE trial.

Questions have been raised about the independence of both the trial steering committee and the peer-review, and the speed with which the main paper was fast-tracked by The Lancet. In a First Tier Tribunal hearing to release some of the data under the FOIA, no examples of hostility to the researchers could be given. The small trials that have found similar results to PACE repeated its major flaws.

When data from the trial have been reanalysed, no evidence has been found for the claims the interventions are effective. The trial findings have been rejected by every major institution in the USA, the international scientific community and in debate in Parliament. A number of universities now use it as an example of how not to conduct a research.

There are many questions raised by this massive failure, not least about the MRC's own role in the trial and the competence of its system of peer-review.

 

This isn't about understanding good experimental design this is a civil servant whose job it is to ensure high research standards giving in to lobbying and backing the unbackable. Also standing by her organizations failure to act in the past. In effect this is the MRC saying it is happy with outcome switching and will not apply any standards of governance past a review panel which may be made up of those who have also done poor quality trials. Perhaps it is a good thing that the MRC will be scrapped.

I think MPs should be demanding that Watt appears in front of the science and technology subcommittee to justify her comments and the lack of governance.

 

Could leave that out then.

Sir,

We are surprised by Professor Watt's wholehearted and inaccurate defence of the PACE trial.

Questions have been raised about the independence of both the trial steering committee and the peer-review, and the speed with which the main paper was fast-tracked by The Lancet. The small trials that have found similar results to PACE repeated its major flaws.

When data from the trial have been reanalysed, no evidence has been found for the claims the interventions are effective. The trial findings have been rejected by every major institution in the USA, the international scientific community and in debate in Parliament. A number of universities now use it as an example of how not to conduct a research.

There are many questions raised by this massive failure, not least about the MRC's own role in the trial and the competence of its system of peer-review.