Thread by @CyruxiME

@ssppeerroo @davidtuller1 @TomKindlon Another article with interviews of eminent professors of medicine claiming to have been harassed for their positions on GET/CBT.

Why doesn’t it detail the clear methodological problems with GET/CBT trials instead of saying “there’s no consensus”?

Poor reporting @Melanie_Newman

@ssppeerroo @davidtuller1 @TomKindlon @Melanie_Newman It’s ironic that at the top of the article, there’s a linked opinion about the power imbalance between doctors and #LongCovid patients (also applies to #pwME

It’s what this article perpetuates.

Patients are siding with science, not biased research

blogs.bmj.com/bmj/?p=50499

@ssppeerroo @davidtuller1 @TomKindlon @Melanie_Newman FYI @Melanie_Newman

- NICE rated all GET/CBT trials as (very) low quality on all outcomes because of systematic biases. This expert testimony to NICE explains why nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-n…

-A court in 2016 found no evidence for harassment, said claims had been grossly exaggerated

@ssppeerroo @davidtuller1 @TomKindlon @Melanie_Newman Instead GET/CBT trialists have attacked critics of their trials who produced scientific arguments, esp when they refused to release their RCT data (court’s decision forced them to eventually) me-pedia.org/wiki/Intimidat…

Anyway they continue to denigrate patients, as shows your piece

@ssppeerroo @davidtuller1 @TomKindlon @Melanie_Newman Here you can replace Sharpe or Garner with Raoult:

- they use ridiculously flawed trials to peddle their preferred pseudoscientific therapies

- they claim they’re being harassed when they’re trying to silence critics

Raoult is largely denounced as a fraud but not them. Why?

@ssppeerroo @davidtuller1 @TomKindlon @Melanie_Newman Suggested reading: @SenseScienceUSA’s statistical analysis of PACE, which was the “definitive” GET/CBT trial for CFS senseaboutscienceusa.org/editorial-on-p…

“The reaction to patient criticism and Tuller’s story by the PACE researchers and the Lancet has been to deflect rather than to dissect”

@ssppeerroo @davidtuller1 @TomKindlon @Melanie_Newman @SenseScienceUSA “the way PACE was designed and redesigned means it cannot provide reliable answers to the questions it asked. There is really not a lot that can be said to mitigate that; it’s a terminal prognosis.”

All GET/CBT trials had same critical flaws, as the expert testimony 👆 explains

@ssppeerroo @davidtuller1 @TomKindlon @Melanie_Newman @SenseScienceUSA But you could have looked all this up @Melanie_Newman.

You decided to not address these scientific issues (or the evidence + legal review of “harassment” claims). Rather you sided with the researchers and framed valid criticism as “toxic”. So much for investigative journalism.