The continued critiques of the PACE trial highlight how differing beliefs about the causes of chronic fatigue syndrome still influence how scientific studies in this area are accepted and evaluated. Causal beliefs about chronic fatigue syndrome and a modern version of Cartesian dualism are important in understanding the reaction to the PACE trial. The continued debate on the PACE trial seems to miss the fact that science is incremental. An unfortunate outcome of the PACE controversy and intimidation of researchers may be less research in the area. It is time to move on from criticism and collect more data on effective treatments.
GeraghtyK (2016) ‘PACE-Gate’: When clinical trial evidence meets open data access. Journal of Health Psychology22(9): 1106–1112.
2.
GreenCRCowanPElkR. (2015) National Institutes of Health pathways to prevention workshop: Advancing the research on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Annals of Internal Medicine162(12): 860–865.
3.
HawkesN (2011) Dangers of research into chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ342: d3780.
4.
MustianKMAlfanoCMHecklerC. (2017) Comparison of pharmaceutical, psychological, and exercise treatments for cancer-related fatigue: A meta-analysis. JAMA Oncology3(7): 961–968.
5.
PetrieKJWeinmanJ (2012) Patients’ perceptions of their illness: The dynamo of volition in health care. Current Directions in Psychological Science21: 60–65.
6.
SharpeMGoldsmithKAJohnsonAL. (2016) Patient reaction to the PACE trial – Authors’ reply. Lancet Psychiatry3(2): e8–e9.
WhitePDGoldsmithKAJohnsonAL. (2011) Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): A randomised trial. The Lancet377(9768): 823–836.
