Journal of IiME Volume 5 Issue 1 (May 2011) The Involvement of the PACE Trial Principal Investigators and the Director of the Clinical Trials Unit with the Department for Work and Pensions continued observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status." "The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive „hatchet jobs‟ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a „zombie science‟ evolves." In seeking examples of such 'zombie science', in my opinion, few contenders can match the recent UK PACE trial study by Professor Peter White et al published in The Lancet this February that was rightly, and eruditely, criticised by Professor Malcolm Hooper. Outside of the usual supporters, The Science Media Centre and what many would regard as misinformed converts, PACE is widely viewed as a disgrace: having conflated illness rightly separated by the WHO, having effectively ignored a large body of biomedical evidence, having used unscientific and disingenuous patient selection criteria, and having almost exclusively employed subjective and highly unreliable measurement techniques. See: http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/COMPLAINT-toInvest in ME (Charity Nr. 1114035) Lancet-re-PACE.htm With PACE etc in mind, Professor Charlton's 'Zombie Science' critique paper is well worth reading in full. The reference & link for the full text of the paper is: Professor Bruce Charlton – Zombie Science – a sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest, Medical Hypotheses (2008) 71 327-329, DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.05.018: http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2008/ 07/zombie-science-dead-but-wont-liedown.html If the psychiatrists involved in the PACE trial were serious about science, and genuinely believed ME was maintained by fear of activity and muscle deconditioning as they assert, they would have exclusively used rigorous and internationally accepted patient selection criteria to ensure their study was beyond reproach. They did not. If they were serious about science they would have applied objective assessment criteria to properly informed patients. They did not. In my view, PACE represents a gross abuse of the scientific process and a gross abuse of ME patients. Ditto for much of the largely rhetorical and uncritical literature supportive of PACE that, unlike the many patient protestations such as this article, find their way into the so-called scientific literature. From its inception, PACE was roundly and eruditely criticised as being seriously flawed, that it was publicly funded amounts to a gross abuse of millions of pounds of UK taxpayers' money. In terms of the real-world clinical setting amongst real-world ME patients, I believe the full scientific evidence-base shows that PACE CBT/GET will ultimately contribute nothing positive[2,3]. It will not improve ME patient function in the medium to long term, if at all, Continued page 44 www.investinme.org Page 43/58

44 Publizr Home

You need flash player to view this online publication