Search results

I think that this was the sort of thing that would be very difficult to do in a way that was useful. I don't know enough about the details of Fink's work to really judge things, but I expect it would have been easier to achieve a positive result if the call had been to ensure that Fink's...

Yeah - it could just be that they decided it was worthless, so might as well be withdrawn. I wonder if they were hoping that withdrawing that one too would make this all seem like a low interest house cleaning exercise?

Thanks for trying. Maybe they feel like they've just done a re-review, and don't want to go through it all again... but they're called UpToDate!

It's the obvious, easy response from them. It would have been a lot of work to make it difficult for them to respond like this, and a lot of care to avoid the "some individuals are against researchers' deviation from the classic distinction between physical and mental illness" stuff.

I think this could be one of those tabs I keep open for a long time, on the assumption I'll one day take the time to really understand all the details.

Great. Now I'm reading an 'excellent' blog post on beta coefficients. I hate stats. Even when I think I've got myself to understand something, two days later and I've forgotten it all anyway. Thanks to Brown for looking into this. It's amazing how little studies like this can end up being...

Right, but the recovery results aren't used in the Cochrane review, so while the spin there is still another reason for concern about selective reporting bias (although there are already plenty of reasons to be concerned about that with PACE), it is less directly relevant than some of the other...

I guess that the normal range stuff is less directly relevant to Cochrane's review than the recovery claims. Larun was still meant to look at all protocol deviations when assessing the risk of reporting bias, which would have included ll that, but it looks like she just ignored it. I suspect...

I wonder if they've messed up by making this a bigger story than it would be. Also, I've not seen an outpouring of outrage from researchers about this corruption of science. I wonder if their old tactics aren't working as well as they used to.

Looks like it, yeah: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/norma-o-flynn-72b2932b I wonder what opinions on CBT/GET she thinks should be viewed as COIs.

I thikn it's a response to the "respect patients" line she was replying to: I think that she interpreted that line as meaning 'respect patient views no matter how wrong they are', rather than as 'respect patients enough to engage with them as equals when they identify problems with research'.

She's been like this throughout her career. UK doctors seem to love her for it. I'm amazed by her tweets. I'd be fascinated to be inside her mind for an afternoon. What does she think of herself?

I'm still thinking all this stuff through, but (not forgetting how terrible Cochrane has been for years) I think I am impressed they have been willing to take on Wessely & co by withdrawing this review, even as Cochrane has all of the other drama going on. Maybe that shows my standards are now...

Don't think that this has been posted before - I just found it while looking for something else: https://www.kingshealthpartners.org/assets/000/001/145/KHPJ5100_Psych_Med_Booklet_280317_WEB_Complete_original.pdf?1491471608 There are bits and pieces in the intro, eg: Oh dear... you've got two...

If they've been working in CFS centres but have failed to speak out about the problems with things like PACE, the way patients were being smeared, then they shouldn't be given positions of authority like this. I think that we deserve better than people who will quietly make their money from a...

Seems that they got 'uptodate' just the day before it was announced Cochrane are withdrawing their CFS exercise review. Time to start all over again?

Hopefully he's busy fighting off editors for all the major publications asking him to write on this! Yeah, I don't think it should never be raised, but when people discuss this issue without being very careful with their language it can easily cause us problems. Even when people are careful...

I've started to get a frantic sense that caring about what's true is coming to be viewed as dysfunctional behaviour. The fact that the data Matthees got from the PACE trial led to embarrassed silence from those with power, followed by an enthusiastic endorsement of the SMILE trial is just a bit...

Can you remember what views about CBT and GET you expressed? I'm interested in why your views were seen as a COI, but those who had been making money from providing CBT and GET were seen as suitable for the committee.

Thanks for the info. Would you mind letting us know what it was that led to you being told that your stance on GET and CBT was a conflict of interests?