Defense of the PACE trial is based on argumentation fallacies

Steven Lubet*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

In defense of the PACE trial, Petrie and Weinman employ a series of misleading or fallacious argumentation techniques, including circularity, blaming the victim, bait and switch, non-sequitur, setting up a straw person, guilt by association, red herring, and the parade of horribles. These are described and explained.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1201-1205
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Health Psychology
Volume22
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2017

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • PACE trial
  • beliefs
  • chronic fatigue syndrome
  • health beliefs
  • myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology

Cite this