MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME

Fraudulent research (Cargo cult science)?
263
Cargo cult science is a term used to describe work that has the semblance of being scientific, but whilst such
studies follow all the apparent precepts of scientific investigation, they are missing something essential: they
lack scientific integrity. Cargo cult scientists conduct flawed research that fails to produce useful results.
Physicist and Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman summarised it thus: “We really ought to look into theories that
don’t work, and science that isn’t science. It’s a matter of scientific integrity…..although you may gain some
temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very
careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large
extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science….the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to
judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction”
(Engineering and Science: June 1974:10‐13).
The Times Online reports disconcerting findings about scientific studies: “Faking scientific data and failing to
report commercial conflicts of interest are far more common than previously thought, a study suggests”. Dr Daniele
Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh, who carried out the investigation, says: “Increasing evidence suggests
that known frauds are just the tip of the iceberg”. The article reports: “The results paint a picture of a profession in
which dishonesty and misrepresentation are widespread”. It concludes: “Misconduct was far more frequently
admitted by medical or pharmaceutical researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical research is
being biased by commercial interests” (One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data. Times Online. Hannah
Devlin, June 4 th 2009). The article may come as no surprise to the ME/CFS community.
Is the PACE Trial “Cargo Cult Science”? Time will tell, but it seems that the PACE Trial may not be being
carried out within the normal confines of scientific exactitude.
Conflicting information
Conflicting information permeates the PACE Trial Manuals and this is evident in the quotations in Section 4
below, so just a few illustrations are given here. The researchers’ inconsistencies are notable.
The NICE Guideline on “CFS/ME” states: “The GDG did not regard CBT or other behavioural therapies as
curative or directed at the underlying disease process” (Full Guideline, page 252). Physiotherapist Jessica
Bavinton (who used to work with Peter White) was a member of the NICE Guideline Development Group
and as such, she agreed with ‐‐ and signed up to ‐‐ that statement, but she also wrote the PACE Trial
Manuals on GET and contributed to the Manuals on CBT, which contradict the NICE Guideline.
Peter White claims that “a full recovery is possible” (Psychother Psychosom 2007:76(3):171‐176); the
participants’ CBT Manual informs people that the PACE Trial therapies are curative and that “many people
have successfully overcome their CFS/ME” with such behavioural interventions (“Information for relatives,
partners and friends”, page 123). This appears to be untrue for people with ME/CFS and it is unethical for
the content of the Manuals to mislead participants. Moreover, Simon Wessely himself claims that neither
CBT nor GET is remotely curative and that many patients do not benefit from them.
That many patients with ME/CFS do not in fact benefit from these interventions is already a matter of
record, being the published views of the keenest CBT proponents themselves:
• CBT and GET are only “modestly effective”. “Even though these interventions appear effective, the
evidence is based on a small number of studies and neither approach is remotely curative”. “These
interventions are not the answer to CFS” (Editorial: Simon Wessely JAMA 19 th September 2001:286:11)