Steven Lubet

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history

Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, where he specializes in professional responsibility and ethics. He has been living with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) since 2006.

Debra Cassens Weiss wrote about Professor Lubet's CFS battle in ABA Journal: "Well-known law prof battles stigma of chronic fatigue syndrome by going public". Professor Lubet notes patients are "treated as malingerers and met with disbelief" with many "referred to psychiatrists" and that he 'outed' himself [about having ME/CFS] to broaden public understanding."[1]

PACE trial criticism[edit | edit source]

It is understandable that the PACE investigators would defend the validity of their study, but they have understated their professional stake in the reported outcomes of the trial, which was framed from the outset as determining more than simply the effectiveness of the therapies. In fact, they were testing their own theories of the illness, as detailed in the Lancet paper in which they first announced their results... Investigator bias and the PACE trial - Steven Lubert
PACE trial bias - quote from Steven Lubert, Investigator bias and the PACE trial. The PACE trial was based on the Cognitive Behavioral Model - the theory that ME/CFS was fully reversible with behavioral and psychological interventions (GET and CBT), and that no underlying disease process was at work. Patients were selected using the Oxford criteria developed by Sharpe, and recovery was assessed with Chalder's Chalder Fatigue Scale and other patient questionnaires.(Poster licensed for reuse: CC-BY-4.0)

Mr. Lubet is a critic of the PACE trial and has written pieces deconstructing its faults.

Education[edit | edit source]

  • JD, University of California, Berkeley
  • BA, Northwestern University

Open letters[edit | edit source]

  • 2017, Mr. Lubert was one of the signatories of open letter requesting the journal, Psychological Medicine, to retract their paper about the inflated recovery rates of the PACE trial immediately.[2]

Notable articles[edit | edit source]

Virology Blog

Journal of Health Psychology

  • March 7, 2017: "Investigator bias and the PACE trial"

    Abstract - The PACE investigators reject Geraghty’s suggestion that the cognitive behavior therapy/graded exercise therapy trial could have been better left to researchers with no stake in the theories under study. The potential sources and standards for determining researcher bias are considered, concluding that the PACE investigators “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”[3]

  • June 14, 2017: "Defense of the PACE trial is based on argumentation fallacies"

    Abstract - In defense of the PACE trial, Petrie and Weinman employ a series of misleading or fallacious argumentation techniques, including circularity, blaming the victim, bait and switch, non-sequitur, setting up a straw person, guilt by association, red herring, and the parade of horribles. These are described and explained.[4]

The Faculty Lounge

Learn more[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. "Well-known law prof battles stigma of chronic fatigue syndrome by going public". American Bar Association Journal. January 15, 2015.
  2. Lubet, Steven (March 13, 2017). "An open letter to psychological medicine about recovery and the PACE trial". Virology blog.
  3. Lubet, Steven (March 7, 2017). "Investigator bias and the PACE trial". Journal of Health Psychology. 22 (9): 1123–1127. doi:10.1177/1359105317697324.
  4. Lubet, Steven (June 14, 2017). "Defense of the PACE trial is based on argumentation fallacies". Journal of Health Psychology. doi:10.1177/1359105317712523.