Tag: Tuller

Please Help David Tuller, Our Champion!

David Tuller’s fundraiser is now live! Tuller has been tireless in his battle against the GET/CBT ideological onslaught! He has much more work to do and he needs our support.

Tuller has been touring the globe, speaking about the harm the PACE trial has caused ME/CFS patients. Recently, he co-authored a critical paper, Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT, that was published in BMC Psychology.

Tuller has written more than seventy-five  posts on Vincent Racaniello’s Virology Blog, spanning seven years. His articles comprise a full history of how the PACE trial was used to mislead health care providers into thinking ME/CFS could be cured with “a walk and a talk.” Tuller has taken on some of the authors of the PACE study and, despite threats from them, has continued to challenge their findings.

Last year, Tuller successfully raised money through Crowdrise  in order to continue investigating and blogging about the PACE trial. The funds went to the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, which created a position for Tuller to continue his investigative work. Now, a year later, the funds have run out, and Tuller has to depend on the generosity of our community to continue his work.

Please donate HERE!

Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT

Abstract:

Background: The PACE trial was a well-powered randomised trial designed to examine the efficacy of graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome. Reports concluded that both treatments were moderately effective, each leading to recovery in over a fifth of patients. However, the reported analyses did not consistently follow the procedures set out in the published protocol, and it is unclear whether the conclusions are fully justified by the evidence.

Methods: Here, we present results based on the original protocol-specified procedures. Data from a recent Freedom of Information request enabled us to closely approximate these procedures. We also evaluate the conclusions from the trial as a whole.

Results: On the original protocol-specified primary outcome measure – overall improvement rates – there was a significant effect of treatment group. However, the groups receiving CBT or GET did not significantly outperform the Control group after correcting for the number of comparisons specified in the trial protocol. Also, rates of recovery were consistently low and not significantly different across treatment groups. Finally, on secondary measures, significant effects were almost entirely confined to self-report measures. These effects did not endure beyond two years.

Conclusions: These findings raise serious concerns about the robustness of the claims made about the efficacy of CBT and GET. The modest treatment effects obtained on self-report measures in the PACE trial do not exceed what could be reasonably accounted for by participant reporting biases.

Source: Carolyn E. Wilshire, Tom Kindlon, Robert Courtney, Alem Matthees, David Tuller, Keith Geraghty and Bruce Levin. Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT. BMC PsychologyBMC series. Received: 29 May 2017; Accepted: 22 February 2018; Published: 22 March 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-018-0218-3 (Full article) © The Author(s) 2018.

Once again, the PACE authors respond to concerns with empty answers

Abstract:

In their response to Geraghty, the PACE investigators state that they have “repeatedly addressed” the various methodological concerns raised about the trial. While this is true, these responses have repeatedly failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the trial’s very serious flaws. This commentary examines how the current response once again demonstrates the ways in which the investigators avoid acknowledging the obvious problems with PACE and offer non-answers instead-arguments that fall apart quickly under scrutiny.

Source: Tuller D. Once again, the PACE authors respond to concerns with empty answers. J Health Psychol. 2017 Aug;22(9):1118-1122. doi: 10.1177/1359105317703788. Epub 2017 Apr 27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28805521

Once again, the PACE authors respond to concerns with empty answers

Abstract:

In their response to Geraghty, the PACE investigators state that they have “repeatedly addressed” the various methodological concerns raised about the trial. While this is true, these responses have repeatedly failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the trial’s very serious flaws. This commentary examines how the current response once again demonstrates the ways in which the investigators avoid acknowledging the obvious problems with PACE and offer non-answers instead—arguments that fall apart quickly under scrutiny.

Source: David Tuller. Once again, the PACE authors respond to concerns with empty answers. Journal of Health Psychology. First Published April 27, 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317703788 (Full article)