Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
FITNET trial
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Controversy == [[David Tuller]] has written that although the [[PACE trial]] has been publicly discredited when a court-ordered release of key trial data which confirmed PACE authors "weakened their outcome criteria mid-stream in ways that allowed them to report dramatically better results for “improvement” (in ''[[The Lancet]]'' in 2011) and "recovery" (In ''Psychological Medicine'' in 2013)" they "continue to defend the indefensible study" and push forward with [[CBT]] with Dr. Esther Crawley promoting FITNET and wants to enroll more than 700 adolescents.<ref name="21nov16virology">{{Cite web | url=http://www.virology.ws/2016/11/21/trial-by-error-continued-the-new-fitnet-trial-for-kids/ | title = Trial By Error, Continued: The New FITNET Trial for Kids | date = Nov 21, 2016 | last = Tuller | first =David | authorlink =David Tuller|website=[[Virology blog]]|language=en-US|quote =}}</ref> Tuller wrote in [http://www.virology.ws/2016/11/28/trial-by-error-continued-a-follow-up-post-on-fitnet-nhs/ Trial By Error, Continued: A Follow-Up Post on FITNET-NHS] "As part of her media blitz for the FITNET-NHS launch, [[Esther Crawley |Dr. Crawley]] was interviewed on a BBC radio program by a colleague, Dr. [[Phil Hammond]]. In this interview, she made some statements that demonstrate one of two things: Either she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and her misrepresentations are genuine mistakes, or she’s lying. So either she’s incompetent, or she lacks integrity. Not a great choice." Dr. Crawley either made an "unfortunate mistake" or a "deliberate untruth" when she convoluted two comparison groups in the study; one group went on with FITNET and the other did not yet she put the groups together as all going on with FITNET. She also stated: "Now, you know, you can pick and choose how you redefine recovery, and that’s all very important research, but the message from the PACE Trial is not contested; the message is, if you want to get better, you’re much more likely to get better if you get specialist treatment." Dr. Tuller notes this is at serious odds with the facts.<ref name="28nov16virology">{{Cite web | url=http://www.virology.ws/2016/11/28/trial-by-error-continued-a-follow-up-post-on-fitnet-nhs/ | title = Trial By Error, Continued: A Follow-Up Post on FITNET-NHS | date = Nov 28, 2016 | last = Tuller | first = David | authorlink =David Tuller|website=[[Virology blog]]|language=en-US|quote=}}</ref> Excerpt of Dr. Tuller explaining facts of [[PACE trial]] data<ref name="28nov16virology" /> :In reporting their findings in The Lancet in 2011, the PACE authors presented “improvement” results for the two primary outcomes of fatigue and physical function. They reported that about 60 percent of participants in the CBT and GET arms reached the selected thresholds for “improvement” on both measures. In a 2013 paper in the journal Psychological Medicine, they presented “recovery” results based on a composite “recovery” definition that included the two primary outcomes and two additional measures. In this paper, they reported “recovery” rates for the favored intervention groups of 22 percent. :Using the raw trial data that the court ordered them to release earlier this year, the PACE authors themselves reanalyzed the Lancet improvement findings, based on their own initial, more stringent definition of “improvement” in the protocol. In this analysis, the authors reported that only about 20 percent “improved” on both measures, using the methods for assessing “improvement” outlined in the protocol. In other words, only a third as many “improved,” according to the authors’ own original definition, compared to the 60 percent they reported in The Lancet. Moreover, in the reanalysis, ten percent “improved” in the comparison group, meaning that CBT and GET led to “improvements” in only one in ten participants—a pretty sad result for a five-million-pound trial. The [[Countess of Mar]] wrote a November 3, 2016 open letter to the BBC in reference to its media coverage with Esther Crawley and FITNET. The BBC responded on November 21, 2016 and the Countess again wrote to the BBC on December 8, 2016 finding their response unsatisfactory. *Nov 3, 2016, the Countess wrote to the BBC to complain about the coverage of the FITNET ME/CFS paediatric trial run by [[Esther Crawley]].<ref name="openletterbbc">[http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2016/bbc-complaint-mar-nov16.pdf Open Letter to BBC over FITNET coverage - Nov 3, 2016]</ref> She said the reporting was "was neither accurate nor impartial" and that information on the BBC website, news bulletins & news channel were misleading. *Nov 21, 2016, The [http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2016/bbc-reply-mar-nov21.pdf BBC replied] to the Countess's letter stating that "We are aware that research about CFS has been controversial and we try to ensure that this is reflected in our coverage....I accept that the original headline for the article by [[James Gallagher]] which referred to people being ‘cured’ was incorrect. In fact it was published in error and was corrected very shortly after the original version was first posted....we decided to make reference to [the controversy] by including a clip of [[Jane Colby]] from the [[Tymes Trust]]."<ref name="bbcreply2016">[http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2016/bbc-reply-mar-nov21.pdf Response from BBC to Countess of Mar - Nov 21, 2016]</ref> *Dec 8, 2016, the Countess wrote again to the BBC about the [[FITNET]] coverage where she stated "I regret that I find your response far from satisfactory." She referenced [[David Tuller]]'s ''Trial By Error'' articles on FITNET, FITNET and the [[NHS]], flawed Dutch studies of GET/CBT and Esther Crawley.<ref name="BBCcomplaint2">[https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1871874666431000&id=1482582732026864 COMPLAINT TO THE BBC ABOUT FITNET COVERAGE By the Countess of Mar - Dec 8, 2016]</ref>
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs