Skip to content

PACE Trial article follow-up: the momentum continues

November 1, 2015

Following on from my last post: there have been many developments as a result of investigative journalist David Tuller’s deconstruction of the infamous PACE Trial. I am significantly weakened by the work I have put into this project so this is just a short update for the record.

For new readers, this is the introduction from my previous post:

Those of you who read this blog regularly will know that I have lived with the illness Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) for nearly 35 years. The condition is also (and misleadingly) known as “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome” and is therefore often referred to as “ME/CFS” or “CFS/ME”.

I have previously written about the controversial PACE Trial (Principal Investigator: Professor Peter White of St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London) and its highly questionable effects on the treatment of patients – see PACE vs FOIA: Access Denied. American journalist and academic, David Tuller, has now produced an in-depth article which deconstructs the Trial and re-evaluates its efficacy. I have been in contact with David during the last eighteen months and I have given him some assistance with the production of this article.

The article is published on Virology Blog which is hosted by Professor Vincent Racaniello of Columbia University in New York City.

David’s article was published over three consecutive days, starting on 21 October 2015. The links to the article and further detail are in my previous post.

Since then, the PACE team’s authors have responded to the article and David has provided his reply to that. The links are at the end of this post.

There has been a huge media spin-off from the article and the ensuing discussion. Many articles have been published and more are in the pipeline. Social media has been awash with tweets and posts. This story’s not going away any time soon.

I haven’t been able to keep a running list of all the follow-up articles arising from David’s original piece; I’m just not strong enough to do that on top of everything else. However, the #MEAction website has been keeping a wide selection of relevant information and is well worth a visit. The site is also running a petition seeking retraction of the misleading claims in the Trial. David’s own tweets can be found @davidtuller1  [Note: since I first posted this, advocate Leela Play has added a list of some of the articles generated by David’s work in the Comments section below. I’m very grateful to Leela for her input.]

Significantly, the highly respected website Retraction Watch included references to Virology Blog’s series of posts on the PACE Trial in its Weekend Reads. It is the eighth item in the list.

Thank you for reading this. I wish you well.

*************

These are the follow-up posts from Virology Blog:

The PACE team responds: www.virology.ws/2015/10/30/pace-trial-investigators-respond-to-david-tuller/

David’s reply to the PACE team: www.virology.ws/2015/10/30/david-tuller-responds-to-the-pace-investigators/

 

 

 

Advertisements
6 Comments leave one →
  1. November 1, 2015 17:15

    Reblogged this on Short Blogs for the Distracted……… and commented:
    Definitely…This story’s not going away any time soon… thank you Valerie great blog x

    Liked by 1 person

  2. November 1, 2015 18:54

    Reblogged this on Utting-Wolff Spouts.

    Like

  3. November 1, 2015 23:55

    These are the other links I have so far Valerie

    James C. Coyne October 29, 2015 PLOS Blogs
    Uninterpretable: Fatal flaws in PACE Chronic Fatigue Syndrome follow-up study

    http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/2015/10/29/uninterpretable-fatal-flaws-in-pace-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-follow-up-study/

    And carried in full by the Seattle Star
    http://www.seattlestar.net/2015/11/uninterpretable-fatal-flaws-in-pace-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-follow-up-study/

    ——————————————
    Retraction Watch Oct 31, 2015
    http://retractionwatch.com/2015/10/31/weekend-reads-psychology-stats-errors-abound-font-choice-dooms-grant-application/

    “The debate over the PACE chronic fatigue syndrome study continues, with coverage by Science’s Jon Cohen of a new paper by the same authors, a response from the authors to David Tuller’s posts, and a response from Tuller. James Coyne also weighs in.”

    —————————————–
    Science Jon Cohen 27 October 2015 8:00 pm
    Criticism mounts of a long-controversial chronic fatigue study

    http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2015/10/criticism-mounts-long-controversial-chronic-fatigue-study

    —————————————–
    Prof Keith Laws Nov 1 2015
    PACE Thought about Holes

    http://keithsneuroblog.blogspot.ca/2015/11/pace-thoughts-about-holes.html?spref=fb

    Liked by 1 person

  4. November 1, 2015 23:57

    Great to see James Coyne and Prof Laws, 2 respected minds from outside the ME and CFS field, writing about the problems with PACE methodology and conclusions

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Jane Pannell permalink
    November 5, 2015 05:16

    Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of all PWME. Great work.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: