×

David Tuller Tears Apart PACE Trial

Health scientist and New York Times published journalist David Tuller today launched a damning critique upon the UK’s £5 million PACE trial in an article published on the popular Virology Blog.

The PACE trial was an open-label study of graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome that used subjective measures as its main outcomes. It is the core justification for prescribing these therapies to ME patients around the world.

In his detailed article, Tuller challenges the PACE trial authors’ claims that the therapies led to recovery for some patients.

Tuller points out multiple changes to the original, approved study protocol, including the changing of all of the methods for assessing the primary study outcomes, and the relaxation of all of the criteria for recovery.

In what Tuller describes as a “bizarre paradox”, patients’ scores at baseline for physical function and fatigue could worsen and yet they would be considered “recovered” according to the new thresholds that replaced those specified in the study protcol.

The objective measures used in the trial, including a walking test, did not, Tuller says, support the authors’ claims concerning recovery, but the study authors dismissed these measures even though they themselves had designed them.

Critics of the trial have previously pointed out that PACE patients’ average walking test scores after therapy have been exceeded by patients listed for lung transplantation and by older patients with chronic heart failure.

In further criticism, Tuller reports that patients were not informed of the main investigators’ insurance-industry conflicts of interest in the trial, in violation of the study protocol and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Principal investigators Peter White, Trudie Chalder and Michael Sharpe, and Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet where the PACE trial was published, did not grant interviews to Tuller.

However, a number of high-profile scientists spoke to him about the trial. “I’m shocked that The Lancet published it,” said leading geneticist Ronald Davis, of Stanford University. “The PACE study has so many flaws and there are so many questions you’d want to ask about it that I don’t understand how it got through any kind of peer review”.

Jonathan Edwards, world-famous for his work in rheumatoid arthritis at University College London, told Tuller, “It’s a mass of un-interpretability to me. Within the circle who are involved in this field, it seems there were a group who were prepared to all sing by the hymn sheet and agree that PACE was wonderful. But all the issues with the trial are extremely worrying, making interpretation of the clinical significance of the findings more or less impossible.”

University of California epidemiologist Arthur Reingold said to Tuller, “Under the circumstances, an independent review of the trial conducted by experts not involved in the design or conduct of the study would seem to be very much in order.”

Tuller credits patients for much of the information and scientific insight that led to his critique.

The second part of his analysis will appear on Virology Blog tomorrow. (You can read our summary of the entire four part series here: “Investigative journalist debunks PACE trial“)

Categories: All News, Featured news, Research, United Kingdom

Support our work!

Did you find this content useful?
Help us keep going and keep growing. Make a recurring donation today.

Most people don't take the time to donate but if every visitor pledged just $1 per month on a recurring basis, we could fully fund #MEAction.


4 comments on “David Tuller Tears Apart PACE Trial
  1. ahimsa says:

    If anyone would like to watch some videos about problems with the PACE trial, check out the youtube channel, MEAnalyst. Here are a few links:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa3LyYxu49s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJf27ExfyMA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXMZv0MzFCo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3_mjQe-t1M

  2. Ella says:

    This powerful story, published over three days, will definitely get some traction on Twitter. I have been adding @Lancet to include the journal, and suggest using #retractPACE. Maybe others have different ideas about how to get the message across. Just putting it out there.

    The XMRV paper could have been just not replicated, but was retracted, unnecessarily. I believe PACE has some much worse harm to scientific understanding of this disease, and needs to be robustly refuted and then retracted so it can’t be used against us anymore. I’m sure others have more knowledge about how to pursue and support that process.

  3. I am smiling, smiling. Finally the mind-medics are about to receive their comeuppance. Psychology and Psychiatry are not real sciences [paraphrasing Sheldon]. The mind is bathed in physicality. Along with Prof Newton’s team finding the enzyme that I may be short of, [I have been telling people for years that I am an enzyme short of the full reaction], this has been such a good day that I am going to have a little lie down now. Don’t laugh too hard, you lot, PACE yourselves hahaha – not.

  4. Lara Strong says:

    Thank you David Tuller!

    An independent investigation is so desperately needed and it is so refreshing to hear numerous experts point out the blatant manipulation of data and laughability that the PACE trial is.

    I hope that the UK will start to catch up to the US in terms of booting out the psychiatric view once and for all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *