{"id":13833,"date":"2017-08-02T07:54:41","date_gmt":"2017-08-02T07:54:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wames.org.uk\/cms-english\/?p=13833"},"modified":"2017-08-02T13:12:48","modified_gmt":"2017-08-02T13:12:48","slug":"scientists-trade-insults-over-myalgic-encephalomyelitis-me-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wames.org.uk\/cms-english\/scientists-trade-insults-over-myalgic-encephalomyelitis-me-study\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientists trade insults over myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) study"},"content":{"rendered":"

Times<\/strong> article, by Tom Whipple, 1 Aug 2017: Scientists trade insults over myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) study<\/a><\/h3>\n

An acrimonious scientific row has broken out after a \u00a35 million publicly funded study investigating treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome was condemned as \u201cdeeply flawed\u201d and a \u201ctextbook example of a poorly done trial\u201d.<\/p>\n

The dispute led to mass resignations and an exchange of insults so intense that in emails seen by The Times one scientist referred to another as a \u201cdisgusting old fart neoliberal hypocrite\u201d.<\/p>\n

An entire edition of a health journal was devoted yesterday to attacking a landmark study called the Pace trial, published in The Lancet in 2011. It claimed to show that people with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) could improve their condition with simple lifestyle changes.<\/p>\n

This has formed the basis of treatment of the condition, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), in Britain, but provoked a backlash among some sufferers who feared that it implied the illness had a psychological rather than physiological origin. Others said that exercise, far from helping, made them worse. Academics have criticised the trial too, particularly after a freedom of information request revealed all the patient data. Some have argued that it showed the statistical methods were flawed, and that the criteria for deeming the trial a success were changed midway through.<\/p>\n

The editors of the Journal of Health Psychology said it was clear that \u201cthe results are, at best, unreliable, and at worst manipulated to produce a positive-looking outcome\u201d. They did not justify the \u201cextraordinary sum\u201d charged to taxpayers.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

See also:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Times<\/strong> article,\u00a0by Oliver Moody, Tom Whipple, 1 Aug 2017:\u00a0Behind the story – A battle of prescriptions<\/a><\/p>\n

One lot of scientists is mocked as stooges of a free-market conspiracy to dismantle the welfare state. The other stands accused of marshalling a bloody-minded and ideologically driven \u201cwitch-hunt\u201d.How did an argument about a clinical trial become so personal?<\/p>\n

The first thing to understand is that chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), is a very real and traumatic illness affecting about a quarter of a million Britons.<\/p>\n

Mail online<\/strong> article, by Stephen Matthews, 1 Aug 2017:\u00a0‘Disgusting old fart, neoliberal hypocrite’: Angry scientists throw insults at each other over the results of a \u00a35 million taxpayer-funded study into chronic fatigue syndrome<\/a><\/p>\n