Journal of IiME Volume 5 Issue 1 (May 2011) The Media and ME by Margaret Williams Margaret Williams is a well respected authority on ME as well as being an ME patient advocate. Margaret Williams formerly held senior clinical posts in the NHS. Ever since the foundation of the UK Science Media Centre in 1999 – whose purpose is to ensure that the media deliver only headline science stories that accord with Government policies – the reporting of the biomedical science surrounding ME/CFS has been noticeable by its absence. Instead, there has been a wealth of spin promoting the benefits and success of CBT and GET for every disorder imaginable, including ME/CFS. In plain terms, the Science Media Centre presents only a one-sided view of the available information about ME/CFS, and direct contact with editors and health editors of broadsheet newspapers has revealed their policy of limiting their reporting of ME/CFS to what they receive from the Science Media Centre. The fanfare of unlimited praise for the PACE Trial results at the press conference held at the Science Media Centre on 17th February 2011 is a case in point, with the media failing to use its critical faculties and regurgitating only what it had been spoon-fed. There are a staggering number of flaws in the PACE Trial article published in The Lancet (Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. Peter D White et al. The Lancet, 18 February 2011 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2), not one of which was mentioned in the press conference. Invest in ME (Charity Nr. 1114035) These flaws and errors have been identified in a detailed complaint/statistical analysis sent by Professor Malcolm Hooper to The Lancet on 28th March 2011, upon which The Lancet has asked Professor Peter White to comment (a response with which Professor White has apparently not complied within the time allotted for its receipt by The Lancet). It is understood that under the Elsevier complaints policy, Professor Hooper will be asked to respond to Professor White‟s reply when it is received by The Lancet; it is also understood that the PACE Trial article was to be sent for re-review by different reviewers and statisticians whilst The Lancet was awaiting Professor White‟s comments on Professor Hooper‟s complaint. There are a staggering number of flaws in the PACE Trial article published in The Lancet Professor Hooper‟s analysis will shortly be placed in the public domain; he had agreed with The Lancet to withhold his complaint from publication during the time allotted by The Lancet to Professor White to respond to it, but this agreed time limit has now expired. There is one crucial point that should not be overlooked amidst the multitude of comments, spin, disquiet and anger surrounding the clearly contrived and exaggerated results of the PACE Trial, which is that if the PACE Trial Investigators had claimed to be studying the effect of CBT/GET on people with medically unexplained or idiosyncratic “fatigue”, few people would have objected. What is fuelling the opprobrium is the fact that Continued page 14 www.investinme.org Page 13/58
14 Publizr Home