Patients and statisticians have used the recently released data from the PACE trial to show that cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy did not help patients in the study to recover. Alem Matthees, an Australian patient who obtained the data after a two-year battle over his Freedom of Information request, applied the study authors’
Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has released the PACE data to a patient who requested it under the Freedom of Information Act, as ordered by a recent tribunal, on the last possible day to lodge an appeal against the court’s order. The move follows the publication three days previously of an open letter from
The Lancet has rejected a letter criticising the PACE trial that it invited from a large group of scientists. This decision was made after its editor discussed the matter with the study’s authors. Professor Vincent Racaniello, who led the letter, described the behaviour of Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, as “unprofessional”. Racaniello, with
Five professors of science and mathematics, including Professor Ron Davis of Stanford University, have written to PLoS One demanding the correction of an “inaccurate claim” central to a PACE trial paper on cost-effectiveness that was published in the journal in 2012. Referring to a series of articles by Dr. David Tuller criticizing the PACE trial,
Professor Vincent Racianello of Columbia University has said of the PACE trial controversy, “I think they are going to ignore, obfuscate, and give their usual responses until we are all dead. I don’t have hope that the PACE authors, or Lancet, will respond in any meaningful way until there is more of an outcry.” Racianello’s
David Tuller has published a new article in the Health Affairs blog that summarizes the issues with the conduct of the PACE trial and also examines the ways in which PACE and other studies have impacted the attitudes of doctors and the clinical guidelines used by doctors to treat patients. Tuller’s series of articles reporting
On February 3, 2016, a group of patient organizations and advocates (including #MEAction) sent a followup letter to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) further detailing concerns with the 2015 AHRQ Evidence Review and reiterating their request, originally made in November 2015, to reanalyze the conclusions of AHRQ’s Evidence Review in light of
Geocentrism and PACE – both on the wrong side of science Thank you to Ella Peregrine for kindly allowing us to republish her facebook post on #MEAction Recently, David Tuller, James Coyne, Vincent Racaniello, and some other non-invested scientists and writers have been looking more carefully into the claims and relative lack of transparency of the
Journalist and public health expert Dr. David Tuller has, on Virology Blog, attacked a recent commentary in Nature that included “hard-line opponents” of research into chronic fatigue syndrome with climate change denialists and pro-tobacco campaigners who engage in “endless information requests, complaints to researchers’ universities, online harassment, distortion of scientific findings and even threats of
Journalists Julie Rehmeyer and Dr. David Tuller have published an analysis concluding that the PACE trial failed to demonstrate the safety of graded exercise therapy, despite its authors claiming that it was a safe treatment for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Their article, on Virology Blog, concludes that “the PACE researchers’ attempts to prove
