An open letter to Psychological Medicine about “recovery” and the PACE trial

Dr. Robin Murray and Dr. Kenneth Kendler
Psychological Medicine
Cambridge University Press
University Printing House
Shaftesbury Road
Cambridge CB2 8BS
UK

Dear Dr. Murray and Dr. Kendler:

In 2013, Psychological Medicine published an article called “Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after treatments given in the PACE trial.”[1] In the paper, White et al. reported that graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) each led to recovery in 22% of patients, compared with only 7% in a comparison group. The two treatments, they concluded, offered patients “the best chance of recovery.”

PACE was the largest clinical trial ever conducted for chronic fatigue syndrome (also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME/CFS), with the first results published in The Lancet in 2011.[2] It was an open-label study with subjective primary outcomes, a design that requires strict vigilance to prevent the possibility of bias. Yet PACE suffered from major flaws that have raised serious concerns about the validity, reliability and integrity of the findings.[3] Despite these flaws, White et al.’s claims of recovery in Psychological Medicine have greatly impacted treatment, research, and public attitudes towards ME/CFS.

According to the protocol for the PACE trial, participants needed to meet specific benchmarks on four different measures in order to be defined as having achieved “recovery.”[4] But in Psychological Medicine, White et al. significantly relaxed each of the four required outcomes, making “recovery” far easier to achieve. No PACE oversight committees appear to have approved the redefinition of recovery; at least, no such approvals were mentioned. White et al. did not publish the results they would have gotten using the original protocol approach, nor did they include sensitivity analyses, the standard statistical method for assessing the impact of such changes.

Patients, advocates and some scientists quickly pointed out these and other problems. In October of 2015, Virology Blog published an investigation of PACE, by David Tuller of the University of California, Berkeley, that confirmed the trial’s methodological lapses.[5] Since then, more than 12,000 patients and supporters have signed a petition calling for Psychological Medicine to retract the questionable recovery claims. Yet the journal has taken no steps to address the issues.

Last summer, Queen Mary University of London released anonymized PACE trial data under a tribunal order arising from a patient’s freedom-of-information request. In December, an independent research group used that newly released data to calculate the recovery results per the original methodology outlined in the protocol.[6] This reanalysis documented what was already clear: that the claims of recovery could not be taken at face value.

In the reanalysis, which appeared in the journal Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior, Wilshire et al. reported that the PACE protocol’s definition of “recovery” yielded recovery rates of 7 % or less for all arms of the trial. Moreover, in contrast to the findings reported in Psychological Medicine, the PACE interventions offered no statistically significant benefits. In conclusion, noted Wilshire et al., “the claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.”

In short, the PACE trial had null results for recovery, according to the protocol definition selected by the authors themselves. Besides the inflated recovery results reported in Psychological Medicine, the study suffered from a host of other problems, including the following:

*In a paradox, the revised recovery thresholds for physical function and fatigue–two of the four recovery measures–were so lax that patients could deteriorate during the trial and yet be counted as “recovered” on these outcomes. In fact, 13 % of participants met one or both of these recovery thresholds at baseline. White et al. did not disclose these salient facts in Psychological Medicine. We know of no other studies in the clinical trial literature in which recovery thresholds for an indicator actually represented worse health status than the entry thresholds for serious disability on the same indicator.

*During the trial, the authors published a newsletter for participants that included glowing testimonials from earlier participants about their positive outcomes in the trial.[7] An article in the same newsletter reported that a national clinical guidelines committee had already recommended CBT and GET as effective; the newsletter article did not mention adaptive pacing therapy, an intervention developed specifically for the PACE trial. The participant testimonials and the newsletter article could have biased the responses of an unknown number of the two hundred or more people still undergoing assessments—about a third of the total sample.

*The PACE protocol included a promise that the investigators would inform prospective participants of “any possible conflicts of interest.” Key PACE investigators have had longstanding relationships with major insurance companies, advising them on how to handle disability claims related to ME/CFS. However, the trial’s consent forms did not mention these self-evident conflicts of interest. It is irrelevant that insurance companies were not directly involved in the trial and insufficient that the investigators disclosed these links in their published research. Given this serious omission, the consent obtained from the 641 trial participants is of questionable legitimacy.

Such flaws are unacceptable in published research; they cannot be defended or explained away. The PACE investigators have repeatedly tried to address these concerns. Yet their efforts to date—in journal correspondence, news articles, blog posts, and most recently in their response to Wilshire et al. in Fatigue[8]have been incomplete and unconvincing.

The PACE trial compounded these errors by using a case definition for the illness that required only one symptom–six months of disabling, unexplained fatigue. A 2015 report from the U.S. National Institutes of Health recommended abandoning this single-symptom approach for identifying patients.[9] The NIH report concluded that this broad case definition generated heterogeneous samples of people with a variety of fatiguing illnesses, and that using it to study ME/CFS could “impair progress and cause harm.”

PACE included sub-group analyses of two alternate and more specific case definitions, but these case definitions were modified in ways that could have impacted the results. Moreover, an unknown number of prospective participants might have met these alternate criteria but been excluded from the study by the initial screening.

To protect patients from ineffective and possibly harmful treatments, White et al.’s recovery claims cannot stand in the literature. Therefore, we are asking Psychological Medicine to retract the paper immediately. Patients and clinicians deserve and expect accurate and unbiased information on which to base their treatment decisions. We urge you to take action without further delay.

Sincerely,

Dharam V. Ablashi, DVM, MS, Dip Bact
Scientific Director
HHV-6 Foundation
Former Senior Investigator
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland, USA

James N. Baraniuk, MD
Professor, Department of Medicine
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C., USA

Lisa F. Barcellos, MPH, PhD
Professor of Epidemiology
School of Public Health
California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, USA

Lucinda Bateman, MD
Medical Director
Bateman Horne Center
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Alison C. Bested, MD, FRCPC
Clinical Associate Professor
Faculty of Medicine
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Molly Brown, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois, USA

John Chia, MD
Clinician and Researcher
EVMED Research
Lomita, California, USA

Todd E. Davenport, PT, DPT, MPH, OCS
Associate Professor
Department of Physical Therapy
University of the Pacific
Stockton, California, USA

Ronald W. Davis, PhD
Professor of Biochemistry and Genetics
Stanford University
Stanford, California, USA

Simon Duffy, PhD, FRSA
Director
Centre for Welfare Reform
Sheffield, UK

Jonathan C.W. Edwards, MD
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University College London
London, UK

Derek Enlander, MD
New York, New York, USA

Meredyth Evans, PhD
Clinical Psychologist and Researcher
Chicago, Illinois, USA

Kenneth J. Friedman, PhD
Associate Professor of Physiology and Pharmacology (retired)
New Jersey Medical School
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Newark, New Jersey, USA

Robert F. Garry, PhD
Professor of Microbiology and Immunology
Tulane University School of Medicine
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

Keith Geraghty, PhD
Honorary Research Fellow
Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care
School of Health Sciences
University of Manchester
Manchester, UK

Ian Gibson, PhD
Former Member of Parliament for Norwich North
Former Dean, School of Biological Sciences
University of East Anglia
Honorary Senior Lecturer and Associate Tutor
Norwich Medical School
University of East Anglia
Norwich, UK

Rebecca Goldin, PhD
Professor of Mathematics
George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia, USA

Ellen Goudsmit, PhD, FBPsS
Health Psychologist (retired)
Former Visiting Research Fellow
University of East London
London, UK

Maureen Hanson, PhD
Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York, USA

Malcolm Hooper, PhD
Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry
University of Sunderland
Sunderland, UK

Leonard A. Jason, PhD
Professor of Psychology
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois, USA

Michael W. Kahn, MD
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Jon D. Kaiser, MD
Clinical Faculty
Department of Medicine
University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, California, USA

David L. Kaufman, MD
Medical Director
Open Medicine Institute
Mountain View, California, USA

Betsy Keller, PhD
Department of Exercise and Sports Sciences
Ithaca College
Ithaca, New York, USA

Nancy Klimas, MD
Director, Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine
Nova Southeastern University
Director, Miami VA Medical Center GWI and CFS/ME Program
Miami, Florida, USA

Andreas M. Kogelnik, MD, PhD
Director and Chief Executive Officer
Open Medicine Institute
Mountain View, California, USA

Eliana M. Lacerda, MD, MSc, PhD
Clinical Assistant Professor
Disability & Eye Health Group/Clinical Research Department
Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
London, UK

Charles W. Lapp, MD
Medical Director
Hunter-Hopkins Center
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
Assistant Consulting Professor
Department of Community and Family Medicine
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, North Carolina, USA

Bruce Levin, PhD
Professor of Biostatistics
Columbia University
New York, New York, USA

Alan R. Light, PhD
Professor of Anesthesiology
Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Vincent C. Lombardi, PhD
Director of Research
Nevada Center for Biomedical Research
Reno, Nevada, USA

Alex Lubet, PhD
Professor of Music
Head, Interdisciplinary Graduate Group in Disability Studies
Affiliate Faculty, Center for Bioethics
Affiliate Faculty, Center for Cognitive Sciences
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Steven Lubet
Williams Memorial Professor of Law
Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Chicago, Illinois, USA

Sonya Marshall-Gradisnik, PhD
Professor of Immunology
Co-Director, National Centre for Neuroimmunology and Emerging Diseases
Griffith University
Queensland, Australia

Patrick E. McKnight, PhD
Professor of Psychology
George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia, USA

Jose G. Montoya, MD, FACP, FIDSA
Professor of Medicine
Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, California, USA

Zaher Nahle, PhD, MPA
Vice President for Research and Scientific Programs
Solve ME/CFS Initiative
Los Angeles, California, USA

Henrik Nielsen, MD
Specialist in Internal Medicine and Rheumatology
Copenhagen, Denmark

James M. Oleske, MD, MPH
François-Xavier Bagnoud Professor of Pediatrics
Senator of RBHS Research Centers, Bureaus, and Institutes
Director, Division of Pediatrics Allergy, Immunology & Infectious Diseases
Department of Pediatrics
Rutgers New Jersey Medical School
Newark, New Jersey, USA

Elisa Oltra, PhD
Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology
Catholic University of Valencia School of Medicine
Valencia, Spain

Richard Podell, MD, MPH
Clinical Professor
Department of Family Medicine
Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

Nicole Porter, PhD
Psychologist in Private Practice
Rolling Ground, Wisconsin, USA

Vincent R. Racaniello, PhD
Professor of Microbiology and Immunology
Columbia University
New York, New York, USA

Arthur L. Reingold, MD
Professor of Epidemiology
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, USA

Anders Rosén, MD
Professor of Inflammation and Tumor Biology
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
Division of Cell Biology
Linköping University
Linköping, Sweden

Peter C. Rowe, MD
Professor of Pediatrics
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Baltimore, Maryland, USA

William Satariano, PhD
Professor of Epidemiology and Community Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, USA

Ola Didrik Saugstad, MD, PhD, FRCPE
Professor of Pediatrics
University of Oslo
Director and Department Head
Department of Pediatric Research
University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital
Oslo, Norway

Charles Shepherd, MB, BS
Honorary Medical Adviser to the ME Association
Buckingham, UK

Christopher R. Snell, PhD
Scientific Director
WorkWell Foundation
Ripon, California, USA

Donald R. Staines, MBBS, MPH, FAFPHM, FAFOEM
Clinical Professor
Menzies Health Institute Queensland
Co-Director, National Centre for Neuroimmunology and Emerging Diseases
Griffith University
Queensland, Australia

Philip B. Stark, PhD
Professor of Statistics
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, USA

Eleanor Stein, MD, FRCP(C)
Psychiatrist in Private Practice
Assistant Clinical Professor
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Staci Stevens, MA
Founder, Exercise Physiologist
Workwell Foundation
Ripon, California, USA

Julian Stewart, MD, PhD
Professor of Pediatrics, Physiology and Medicine
Associate Chairman for Patient Oriented Research
Director, Center for Hypotension
New York Medical College
Hawthorne, NY, USA

Leonie Sugarman, PhD
Emeritus Associate Professor of Applied Psychology
University of Cumbria
Carlisle, UK

John Swartzberg, MD
Clinical Professor Emeritus
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, USA

Ronald G. Tompkins, MD, ScD
Summer M Redstone Professor of Surgery
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts, USA

David Tuller, DrPH
Lecturer in Public Health and Journalism
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, USA

Rosemary A. Underhill, MB, BS, MRCOG, FRCSE
Physician and Independent Researcher
Palm Coast, Florida, USA

Rosamund Vallings, MNZM, MB, BS
General Practitioner
Auckland, New Zealand

Michael VanElzakker, PhD
Research Fellow, Psychiatric Neuroscience Division
Harvard Medical School & Massachusetts General HospitaInstructor, Tufts University Psychology
Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Mark VanNess, PhD
Professor of Health, Exercise & Sports Sciences
University of the Pacific
Stockton, California, USA
Workwell Foundation
Ripon, California, USA

Mark Vink, MD
Family Physician
Soerabaja Research Center
Amsterdam, Netherlands

Frans Visser, MD
Cardiologist
Stichting Cardiozorg
Hoofddorp, Netherlands

Tony Ward, MA (Hons), PhD, DipClinPsyc
Registered Clinical Psychologist
Professor of Clinical Psychology
School of Psychology
Victoria University of Wellington
Wellington, New Zealand
Adjunct Professor, School of Psychology
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, UK
Adjunct Professor, School of Psychology
University of Kent
Canterbury, UK

William Weir, FRCP
Infectious Disease Consultant
London, UK

John Whiting, MD
Specialist Physician
Private Practice
Brisbane, Australia

Carolyn Wilshire, PhD
Senior Lecturer
School of Psychology
Victoria University of Wellington
Wellington, New Zealand

Michael Zeineh, MD, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Radiology
Stanford University
Stanford, California, USA

Marcie Zinn, PhD
Research Consultant in Experimental Electrical Neuroimaging and Statistics
Center for Community Research
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois, USA
Executive Director
Society for Neuroscience and Psychology in the Performing Arts
Dublin, California, USA

Mark Zinn, MM
Research Consultant in Experimental Electrophysiology
Center for Community Research
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois, USA

 

ME/CFS Patient Organizations

25% ME Group
UK

Emerge Australia
Australia

European ME Alliance:

Belgium ME/CFS Association
Belgium

ME Foreningen
Denmark

Suomen CFS-Yhdistys
Finland

Fatigatio e.V.
Germany

Het Alternatief
Netherlands

Icelandic ME Association
Iceland

Irish ME Trust
Ireland

Associazione Malati di CFS
Italy

Norges ME-forening
Norway

Liga SFC
Spain

Riksföreningen för ME-patienter
Sweden

Verein ME/CFS Schweiz
Switzerland

Invest in ME Research
UK

Hope 4 ME & Fibro Northern Ireland
UK

Irish ME/CFS Association
Ireland

Massachusetts CFIDS/ME & FM Association
USA

ME Association
UK

ME/cvs Vereniging
Netherlands

National ME/FM Action Network
Canada

New Jersey ME/CFS Association
USA

Pandora Org
USA

Phoenix Rising
International membership representing many countries

Solve ME/CFS Initiative
USA

Tymes Trust (The Young ME Sufferers Trust)
UK

Wisconsin ME and CFS Association
USA

[1] White PD, Goldsmith K, Johnson AL, et al. 2013. Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after treatments given in the PACE trial. Psychological Medicine 43(10): 2227-2235.

[2] White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al. 2011. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. The Lancet 377: 823–836

[3] Racaniello V. 2016. An open letter to The Lancet, again. Virology Blog, 10 Feb. Available at: http://www.virology.ws/2016/02/10/open-letter-lancet-again/ (accessed on 2/24/17).

[4] White PD, Sharpe MC, Chalder T, et al. 2007. Protocol for the PACE trial: a randomised controlled trial of adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy, and graded exercise, as supplements to standardised specialist medical care versus standardised specialist medical care alone for patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis or encephalopathy. BMC Neurology 7: 6.

[5] Tuller D. 2015. Trial by error: the troubling case of the PACE chronic fatigue syndrome trial. Virology Blog, 21-23 Oct. Available at: http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/21/trial-by-error-i/ (accessed on 2/24/17)

[6] Wilshire C, Kindlon T, Matthees A, McGrath S. 2016. Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior; published online 14 Dec. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724 (accessed on 2/24/17)

[7] PACE Participants Newsletter. December 2008. Issue 3. Available at: http://www.wolfson.qmul.ac.uk/images/pdfs/participantsnewsletter3.pdf (accessed on 2/24/17).

[8] Sharpe M, Chalder T, Johnson AL, et al. 2017. Do more people recover from chronic fatigue syndrome with cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy than with other treatments? Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior; published online 15 Feb. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1288629 (accessed on 2/24/17).

[9] Green CR, Cowan P, Elk R. 2015. National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop: Advancing the research on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Annals of Internal Medicine 162: 860-865.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Scott Simpson

    Thank you!

    For the letter to the editors, for enlisting the leaders in the ME community, and for being like a dog with a bone and not letting this PACE fiasco go without righting the harmful wrongs.

    Keep up the pressure, you’ve got millions of sick and disabled ME patients behind you.

  • Greg Crowhurst

    We are delighted to see so many clinicians and patient groups, united in standing up for the truth. The great question, however is, why has psychiatry been allowed to dominate for so long ? Of great concern is the recent JCPMH Guidance for Commissioners, here in the UK, specifically naming ME as a “Somatoform Disorder”. This too needs a unified call for retraction; yet it seems to have been published with little protest. http://www.jcpmh.info/good-services/medically-unexplained-symptoms/

  • A.B.

    The support of the signatories is much appreciated.

    The PACE trial authors are shockingly dishonest and it reflects badly on the relevant journals that they have refused to take appropriate action. Hopefully Psychological Medicine will demonstrate leadership and integrity. The reality is that CBT/GET are not effective treatments for commonly accepted definitions of ME or CFS and this can be seen in the data.

  • Luise

    A big thank you to everyone involved! PACE caused so much harm, even in Germany where I’m from. I’m very grateful and this open letter gives me hope that things might finally change. Thanks again!

  • Sasha

    Huge thanks to all the signatories, and to you, Prof. Racaniello, for publishing this on your blog.

    Psychological Medicine have ignored the voices of over 12,000 patients and supporters who asked in last year’s petition for the misleading analyses in this paper to be retracted. I hope they’ll listen to the impressive signatories of this letter – I count over 100 individual experts and patients’ organisations, and they’re from many countries.

    Drs. Murray and Kendler: Can you really not see that having recovery thresholds below trial-entry thresholds is insane? Would you like yourselves, or members of your own families, to be treated on the basis of a trial where this happened? Please now act in the interests of patients and retract this paper – and then explain why it’s taken you four years to do it.

  • Anne

    Thank you so much to all the people involved in this letter.
    It is unacceptable that a trial that has so much flaws is still influencing medical care and patients’ life.

  • Valentijn

    Heartfelt thanks to the signatories of this letter, who continue to advocate for ME patients and good scientific practices. Hopefully the authors of the PACE trial will get the message that conduct bordering on academic fraud is not acceptable, and that smearing an entire patient population is not an acceptable way to distract from their own misconduct.

    It has been appalling to see the PACE authors justify their ridiculous claims of recovery by suggesting that it is the patients and researchers conducting the reanalysis who arbitrarily created new recovery thresholds. In fact it was the PACE authors who substantially deviated from their own published trial protocol, forcing patients to fight for the data so it could be analyzed according to the promised protocol.

  • Jane colby

    And here’s my personal take on the whole CBTforME empire which needs to come crashing down. THE RULE OF CBT http://www.methenewplague.net/blog/2017/03/13/THE-RULE-OF-CBT.aspx?alt_id=KRF7Z-72A76-2B1&ts=636249951163684230

  • Amanda Rankin

    Is the letter srill open for signitures ?

  • A.B.

    I would also like to know how this paper passed peer review. There clearly exists a major flaw in the peer review system when an error like this can get through.

  • Hilary Adams

    Thank you so much to all involved.

    There are so many of us willing you on to help bring an end to the pernicious influence of this deeply flawed piece of research. The harm caused to ME patients and their families through the use of GET (and the PACE authors’ version of CBT) is incalculable – and current research supports the view that it is difficult to imagine a more damaging and inappropriate ‘therapy’ for this particular condition than GET.

    What is more, the focus on and continuing promotion of these ineffective and unsupported ‘therapies’ has seriously detracted from the funding and effort which should have been put into substantial bio-medical research long before now. Far too many patients have been waiting decades for help.

    How can any journal which lays claim to scientific (or ethical) integrity continue to support PACE?

  • Anne

    Yes,the choosen threshold for recovery (60 on the 36 Sf scale) is so ludicrous, that this paper should never have been taken seriously to begin with.

    I can’t imagine a biomedical study accepting such low standarts for recovery. Any sane scientist would have burst into laughter.

    Why is this possible in ME research?

  • John Leslie Whiting

    Thank you Greg for reminding us that even now, this unusual consortium of doctors with “I Don’t Know” Syndrome (IDKS) remain fanatical to their last breath regarding an unsupportable MUS hypothesis that clearly is being forced upon Health Authorities as “Guidelines” in order to perhaps blindsight them or to provide them with a continuing means of absolving themselves of their proper and ethical responsibilities and duties.

  • Elizabeth Sanchez

    Thank you to everyone involved in this letter. Thank you for persisting and for continuing to hold the PACE feet to the fire. The harm they have caused, and continue to cause patients is felt every single day.

    If possible, pease add the ME/FM Society of BC as a signatory.

  • mesupport

    Thank you all the signatories the hope this provides is priceless.

  • PACE- granskaren

    Thank you!

  • Alex

    Thank you so much for this. The patient community is really grateful too the author and all of the signatories.

  • cathrine engsig

    On behalf of all Danish ME patients I would like to thank you SO much for this final count down of this flawed paper.

  • Alex Young

    If they actually held to I Don’t Know they would never claim psychogenic causation. I compare it to the difference between people who acknowledge UFOs and those who promote flying sauces. One is justifiable, the other is highly dubious, and the burden of proof is on them … they need substantive proof. MUSes are real in the sense we don’t know. The next inference by psychogenic proponents is irrational, and labelled the psychogenic inference I think, after Syke’s papers.

  • Caroline Sandberg

    What an impressive amount of distinguished scientists coming together in this extremely important quest. Thank you all! ❤

  • Alex Young

    I want everyone who contributed to this open letter to know that I am grateful. I suspect the patient community will be discussing this for quite a while.

    This is not just a message of good job well done. You have brought hope to patients. You have bolstered confidence in the scientific process. You have demonstrated that scientists, doctors and academics will stand up and decry poor quality science, even when most of medicine is silent at best.

  • AndyPR

    I don’t have words to fully express my thanks to all who have signed this letter. You are standing up for not only good science but also for treating many people with ME worldwide in an ethical compassionate way, something that the authors of PACE seem to have gone out of their way not to do, favoring their careers over the welfare of so many people.

  • Lady Shambles

    Thank you indeed! If this was a poker game I think we know how it would end. This is a top hand of signatories.. a Royal flush. Just waiting for that house of cards on Denmark Hill to collapse… surely it can’t be long?

    Indebted.

  • sarahdarwin

    Heartfelt thanks to all concerned. Psychological Medicine’s reputation can only be improved by recognising that the case for retraction is overwhelming.

  • Diane Kirk

    Thank you to the authors and signatories for this very clear explanation of the problems with the PACE Trial, that have led to the dismissive and detrimental treatment of people with M.E.

  • Molly

    A heart felt thank you to all who have signed this. It is vitally important to ME patients that this paper is retracted.

    Every visit to the doctor, every interaction with a health professional we deal with the destructive fall out of PACE . A trial designed to prove the pet theories and deeply ingrained ‘faulty beliefs ‘ of a vocal minority of researchers AT All COSTS. (a cost born heavily by ME patients). Researchers whose careers have been built on this theory and it’s inappropriate treatments. PACE has misled and misinformed health professionals around the world, and the damage done to the lives of ME patients is immeasurable.

    I can not even begin to emphasize the harms done to ME patients in order to prove this misguided belief. Many now are wheelchair bound, many others bed bound and tragically some have passed away, a direct result of medical neglect due to the misinformed beliefs regarding this disease. And who and what is at the Centre of those misinformed beliefs which infuse medical culture? the PACE trial, it’s authors and supporters.

    ALL of us carry the stigma, the burden, the disbelief and ridicule, attitudes this study has served to kindle and ignite.
    Putting this tragic paper to bed once and for all is what we as patients need. Asking the authors of this paper to leave the field of ME and resign, is in my opinion also what needs to happen. It is not OK nor appropriate for for researchers who have caused such harm and are desperately unwanted by the patients they seek to study to continue to do so. As a patient this feels incredibly abusive.
    But thank you to all who have signed. It is great to know so many of you care. Hi there, Could you please tell me if you have ha…

    eBay
    New message to: monstamoco
    Hi there,
    Could you please tell me if you have had the wrong dress delivered. It seems that I have mixed up labels and another lady has your dress and you have most probably have hers. If so I am terribly sorry for this mix up.
    If you could post it back to me tracked I will refund you the cost of postage through PayPal and as soon as I get your dress I will send it out first class.
    I am so sorry for the. Mix up and inconvenience.
    Kind regards
    Jo

    Collectif Aida Zak Lucia Red Gingham Dress UK12/M – Pinup Retro Vintage 50s
    Collectif Aida Zak Lucia Red Ging
    Order status: Paid
    Paid £31.50 with PAYPAL on 04 Mar, 2017 22:27 GMT
    View order details

    Only purchases on eBay are covered by the eBay purchase protection programmes. Asking your trading partner to complete a transaction outside of eBay is not allowed.

    Email reference ID: [#a04-7n76dhoisa#]_[#dd07653c5f6b4c219d47d64efd46c956#]

    We don’t check this mailbox, so please don’t reply to this message. If you have a question, go to Help & Contact.

    eBay sent this message to Joanna Morriss (jomo2010). Learn more about account protection. eBay is committed to your privacy. Learn more about our privacy policy and user agreement.

    This email was sent by eBay Europe S.à r.l., which may use affiliates to provide eBay services. If you are a non-EU resident, please refer to the user agreement for the contact data of your contracting party.

    ©2017 eBay Inc., eBay Europe S.à r.l. 22-24 Boulevard Royal, L-2449,

  • Barbara Fifield

    Thank you to everyone involved for continuing to persist with this critical issue.
    I understand signatories can still be added.
    We’d be pleased to add Millions Missing Canada to your list.

  • bleeb90

    Thank you.

  • Sandra

    Thank you to all who signed this letter. The editors of Psychological Medicine have a choice. They can either stand up for the truth and protect millions of ME patients around the world from further harm, or defend the careers of these CBT/GET/false illness beliefs proponents whose work borders on fraud. Which will it be? Patients, their families, scientists, clinicians, academics are waiting for an answer. Again I ask: Which will it be?

  • A.B.

    Patients are treated badly by society when they are viewed as having the possibility of getting better, but also lacking the motivation to get better. The message by the PACE trial authors is that the illness is psychosocial in origin and that patients can get better, if only they want to.

    Patients can be emotionally vulnerable as result of their life being destroyed by the illness. They are not in a good position to cope with social injustice added on top of this.

    Patients also tend to be dependent on others, and may find their carers and family being skeptical or even abusive as result of decades of efforts to portrait this illness as being psychosocial in origin.

    Judging from how the PACE authors have acted with requests for data and criticism, they knew very well that CBT/GET don’t work. And they cannot be ignorant of the abuse inflicted on patients that are viewed as choosing illness over health. Promoting an ineffective behavioural treatment sets patients up to fail. Juding from patient surveys, the exercise component of the treatment may also inflict permanent harm.

    It is difficult to believe that the situation could be so bad, but here we are.

  • Beth Nielson

    You can contact Cambridge University Press by phone or e-mail listed here: http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/contact-us/united-states#country-contact-data Let them know you read the Open Letter!

  • Sean Kirby

    Too sick to say much more than thank you to everybody who organised and signed it.

  • Beth Nielson

    Tweeted by @TomKindlon “If anyone else would like to sign this, email me at tomkindlon [at] Hotmail [dot] com and I will pass it on to David Tuller.”