@ElizaCharley @RACGP @davidtuller1 In some ways that's useful - if you're endorsing the PACE protocol, uncritically, it means that the response is not 'there is criticism of PACE', but 'The PACE authors, in their followup paper at 12mo found slightly negat
RT @angryhacademic: Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
@angryhacademic @davidtuller1 @MEActNet V Important to note that it was @TomKindlon and others who identified errors in the cost-effectiveness analysis itself. Full commentary trail is here: https://t.co/BjnOdZcBV7
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
RT @davidtuller1: Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied ab…
Yes, that's been there for years. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the real issue about that paper--the authors lied about their cost-effectiveness analysis in the body of the paper and implicitly acknowledged the lie in the post-publication responses.
Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis https://t.co/vDAXoBVgoc @davidtuller1 - did you see the expression of concern added by the journal?
RT @SithElephant: @_Lucibee @TomKindlon @TheLancet The most damaging IMO to the 'it really works' crowd should be this paper, by the same a…
RT @SithElephant: @_Lucibee @TomKindlon @TheLancet The most damaging IMO to the 'it really works' crowd should be this paper, by the same a…
RT @SithElephant: @_Lucibee @TomKindlon @TheLancet The most damaging IMO to the 'it really works' crowd should be this paper, by the same a…
@_Lucibee @TomKindlon @TheLancet The most damaging IMO to the 'it really works' crowd should be this paper, by the same authors as PACE, 12mo followup. Who find that average lost employment days for the three treatment arms after one year are 148, 151, 144
RT @interestingdan: @sunsopeningband PACE's follow-up paper found the control arm were doing slightly better than their peers 'treated' wit…
RT @interestingdan: @sunsopeningband PACE's follow-up paper found the control arm were doing slightly better than their peers 'treated' wit…
RT @interestingdan: @sunsopeningband PACE's follow-up paper found the control arm were doing slightly better than their peers 'treated' wit…
RT @interestingdan: @sunsopeningband PACE's follow-up paper found the control arm were doing slightly better than their peers 'treated' wit…
RT @interestingdan: @sunsopeningband PACE's follow-up paper found the control arm were doing slightly better than their peers 'treated' wit…
@sunsopeningband PACE's follow-up paper found the control arm were doing slightly better than their peers 'treated' with GET and CBT. So, anyone feeling especially moved to defend PACE should note that they will have to defend it from its own authors http
RT @SithElephant: @Dan_Wyke @TomKindlon @davidtuller1 @Huisarts_Vink Remarkable that this is utterly ignored in their own paper. '...benefi…
@Dan_Wyke @TomKindlon @davidtuller1 @Huisarts_Vink Remarkable that this is utterly ignored in their own paper. '...benefits or payments from income protection schemes and differences between groups were not substantial.' and 'There was no clear difference
@SGME_CH @TomKindlon And if they wish to trust the PACE team - the following is that teams 'cost effectiveness' paper, published the year after on the trial. The graphic breaks down table 4. In no arm of the trial (including control) were more patients a
@RJ_Howes @TomKindlon While I hesitate in any way to defend any aspect of the trial, the employment data was in a paper on cost effectiveness by the original authors published the year after the main results. Table 4. https://t.co/trOOqWM2lU
@LeithMotive @stephenkb The patient community is understandably hostile towards researchers who have failed to find significant treatments, and continue to push their treatment even in the case of failures. For example, largest trial in the area. Abstract
@PLOS @sTeamTraen @PLOSONE Will this include when researchers refuse to release data that was a condition of publication? https://t.co/ZGZbQ7lXTx And the retraction of a response which is now false? The REC has changed its guidance and now supports release
@Chris_T_Clarke @RoseSallufi @Dr2NisreenAlwan Related table drawn from PACE which was the largest trial in this area, the followup cost effectiveness study by PACE authors. https://t.co/v1ma0NFneg You may also want to read the expression of concern. https:
RT @TomKindlon: 4/ "Coercive practices by insurance companies and others should stop following the publication of these results" https://t…
RT @TomKindlon: 4/ "Coercive practices by insurance companies and others should stop following the publication of these results" https://t…
4/ "Coercive practices by insurance companies and others should stop following the publication of these results" https://t.co/pEMqAOi5fY This comment by me highlights other poor employment results with so-called rehab therapies like CBT & GET for #CF
RT @SithElephant: @TomChivers I would draw your attention to figure 4 of the PACE cost-effectiveness trial produced by the original trial t…
RT @SithElephant: @TomChivers I would draw your attention to figure 4 of the PACE cost-effectiveness trial produced by the original trial t…
@TomChivers I would draw your attention to figure 4 of the PACE cost-effectiveness trial produced by the original trial team. https://t.co/trOOqWM2lU This result is not highlighted, but is the most important one in the paper. Patients in active arms of the
RT @mefibromyalgia1: It was all about money! Disgusting that our lives are worth so little. Patient care should be at the heart of every me…
In case you were wondering why the NHS likes CBT and GET so much; they're cheap.
RT @mefibromyalgia1: It was all about money! Disgusting that our lives are worth so little. Patient care should be at the heart of every me…
It was all about money! Disgusting that our lives are worth so little. Patient care should be at the heart of every medical decision made. Not people with a god complex who decide down to cost! #pwme #LongCovid #niceguideline @NICEComms #PublishThatGuideli
@elchupacaubra @CoyneoftheRealm @a_straight_line The authors of the largest GET trial (PACE) published a followup paper. In short, no active group in the trial is claiming less out of work benefits at FU. https://t.co/v1ma0NFneg Oddly, this was not highli
RT @keithgeraghty: You have to salute the editors @PLOSONE for sticking a note of concern on the PACE trial cost-effectiveness paper, 1 dat…
You have to salute the editors @PLOSONE for sticking a note of concern on the PACE trial cost-effectiveness paper, 1 data wasnt shared 2 £240k wasted by authors trying to block datasharing 3 look at comments below paper - so many issues. https://t.co/v2un
@keithgeraghty McCrone has previous on cost effective. https://t.co/8HAn0xDCur
@trishgreenhalgh @mjknight0380 @mariabuxton2gm1 @ChristineACourt https://t.co/trOOqWM2lU Original PACE authors cost-effectiveness study finding (table 4) it did not help people into work. Oddly, this was not in the abstract, or highlighted in the discussio
@keithgeraghty Worth noting from that papers ( https://t.co/trOOqWM2lU ) table 4 that fewer people are in work in any of the trial arms than control afterwards. The cost assumptions are also very dodgy. https://t.co/wul4SOWyC1
@KingsIoPPN From a paper she was third author of. This investigated effectiveness of CBT/GET in the PACE trial. FEWER PEOPLE WERE IN WORK IN THE TREATMENT ARMS. https://t.co/trOOqWM2lU Note also the expression of concern about this paper. https://t.co/9wXw
@MECFSNews @TomKindlon @HelpMyBreathing https://t.co/trOOqWM2lU by the promoters of GET.
@Healthy_Control @WesselyS @profmsharpe @DWP They published the next year. https://t.co/7Kxs7ZiL5Y "Receipt of benefits due to illness or disability increased slightly from baseline to follow-up (Table 4)."(paraphrasing) is 8-12% higher in the treatment ar
RT @SithElephant: @johnthejack @davidtuller1 Not forgetting this damning phrase from the original authors cost analysis paper. https://t.co…
@johnthejack @davidtuller1 Not forgetting this damning phrase from the original authors cost analysis paper. https://t.co/trOOqWM2lU https://t.co/mk0FOAw6Xl
@BMJPatientEd @trishgreenhalgh Image from table 4 of https://t.co/trOOqWM2lU the PACE teams cost-effectiveness analysis paper. Every group got worse measured by 'recieving out-of-work benefits or payments' the treatment groups worse than control. Responded
RT @SithElephant: @TomKindlon In their own words from PACE authors cost-effectiveness paper: "Receipt of benefits due to illness or disabil…
RT @SithElephant: @TomKindlon In their own words from PACE authors cost-effectiveness paper: "Receipt of benefits due to illness or disabil…
RT @SithElephant: @TomKindlon In their own words from PACE authors cost-effectiveness paper: "Receipt of benefits due to illness or disabil…
RT @SithElephant: @TomKindlon In their own words from PACE authors cost-effectiveness paper: "Receipt of benefits due to illness or disabil…
RT @SithElephant: @TomKindlon In their own words from PACE authors cost-effectiveness paper: "Receipt of benefits due to illness or disabil…
RT @SithElephant: @TomKindlon In their own words from PACE authors cost-effectiveness paper: "Receipt of benefits due to illness or disabil…
@TomKindlon In their own words from PACE authors cost-effectiveness paper: "Receipt of benefits due to illness or disability increased slightly from baseline to follow-up … “ https://t.co/x1jahHMXZO https://t.co/trOOqWM2lU Putting this at the top would h
@ShaunGVos I note https://t.co/8SzQca8814 on IAPT assessment, https://t.co/AcxgwUnCbJ on CFS/ME IAPT treatment and the entire lack of monitoring any harm. https://t.co/trOOqX3Dds - PACE trial assessment report - note table 4, In no arm of the trial includi
RT @richardvallee: @WakeArtisan @Good_Reports No retraction notice, just expression of concern. It's on the cost-analysis paper, a weird ef…
@WakeArtisan @Good_Reports No retraction notice, just expression of concern. It's on the cost-analysis paper, a weird effort considering treatment showed null results. PLOS is open data journal. It's not an option to share or not. #PACEtrial exempted. Arb
@Huisarts_Vink @MTackCVS @MAvanSchijndel @unicorninpem @AnilvanderZee @LouCorsius Ah reference 68 leading to the plosOne expression of concern. https://t.co/iTdURsHeKO
@MEMilitant1 Journal and obfuscating researchers https://t.co/8HAn0xDCur
@mattjhodgkinson Also, still no correction of "robust for alternative assumptions", when alternative assumptions laid out in their statistical analysis plan would not support their conclusion (these analyses were not mentioned in the paper). https://t.co/B
@schneiderleonid @PLOSONE Pushing the bounds of credibility when an expression of concern takes over 18 months https://t.co/7AQOK6ZeWj
RT @keithgeraghty: In 2013 I challenged Prof McCrone's findings on PACE cost effectiveness "If CBT works....why doesnt it show this?" https…
RT @keithgeraghty: In 2013 I challenged Prof McCrone's findings on PACE cost effectiveness "If CBT works....why doesnt it show this?" https…
RT @exceedhergrasp1: https://t.co/BFrzURFKvJ now shows a Notice of Concern. #pwme #MillionsMissing
RT @exceedhergrasp1: https://t.co/BFrzURFKvJ now shows a Notice of Concern. #pwme #MillionsMissing
RT @exceedhergrasp1: https://t.co/BFrzURFKvJ now shows a Notice of Concern. #pwme #MillionsMissing
RT @exceedhergrasp1: https://t.co/BFrzURFKvJ now shows a Notice of Concern. #pwme #MillionsMissing
RT @keithgeraghty: In 2013 I challenged Prof McCrone's findings on PACE cost effectiveness "If CBT works....why doesnt it show this?" https…
.@keithgeraghty @TomKindlon All comments are here: https://t.co/l7BA21VCrp
.@keithgeraghty Comments: All calculations are based on self-reported measures (where is actigraphy?) @TomKindlon https://t.co/sCmY3BubEy
Comments on original article are worth re-reading: Why does data not show CBT to be cost-effective? @keithgeraghty https://t.co/6wK2Dw8hZk
RT @keithgeraghty: In 2013 I challenged Prof McCrone's findings on PACE cost effectiveness "If CBT works....why doesnt it show this?" https…
RT @keithgeraghty: In 2013 I challenged Prof McCrone's findings on PACE cost effectiveness "If CBT works....why doesnt it show this?" https…
RT @keithgeraghty: In 2013 I challenged Prof McCrone's findings on PACE cost effectiveness "If CBT works....why doesnt it show this?" https…
In 2013 I challenged Prof McCrone's findings on PACE cost effectiveness "If CBT works....why doesnt it show this?" https://t.co/cmFdjKCL1L https://t.co/4zAOXephai
RT @exceedhergrasp1: https://t.co/BFrzURFKvJ now shows a Notice of Concern. #pwme #MillionsMissing
RT @exceedhergrasp1: https://t.co/BFrzURFKvJ now shows a Notice of Concern. #pwme #MillionsMissing
https://t.co/BFrzURFKvJ now shows a Notice of Concern. #pwme #MillionsMissing
For the backstory: https://t.co/wFMfZVsi6L https://t.co/qZqhlu7AJY
Wow. Problematic trial for chronic fatigue gets expression of concern — but 5 YEARS after publication https://t.co/ACCd4Kev9J
RT @CoyneoftheRealm: Why are @PLOSONE editors protecting PACE investigators lying to readers about compliance with data sharing policy? htt…
RT @CoyneoftheRealm: Why are @PLOSONE editors protecting PACE investigators lying to readers about compliance with data sharing policy? htt…
RT @TinaRodwell1: And they accuse anyone who does not agree that they are activists courts were not amused by them so why should we be? htt…
RT @CoyneoftheRealm: Why are @PLOSONE editors protecting PACE investigators lying to readers about compliance with data sharing policy? htt…
RT @TinaRodwell1: And they accuse anyone who does not agree that they are activists courts were not amused by them so why should we be? htt…