Search results

yes, as did I. And I wrote him back thanking him for letting me know. I don't see a reason not to prompt these folks when things seem slow. They don't have a good track record of following up. I'm glad Professor Jones decided, in the end, to take the issue seriously and not continue to downplay...

this is true and definitely good to remember. however, none of those involved had really earned this trust. nor did Professor Jones with his initial responses. I think being concerned about whether the journal really intended to follow through was warranted.

really? interesting. thanks for the heads up.

They seem to posting them as they're ready. The special issue of JHP did the same, more or less. The link is to the journal's "latest content"--the last 3-4 days they've all been about biopsychosocial and/or psychosomatics. So I assume the Sharpe/Greco opus will be coming in in next few days...

This is true of course. But I still think it is important to have a disclaimer that it is not medical advice. Even when you get things right, people misinterpret or over-interpret based on whatever.

What is the actual role of this question-asking in government policy-making?

That was my initial thought of what you mean as well, actually. The problem is they could say, well, APT was also "therapy" so there was something different about the "therapies" we liked, i.e. CBT and GET.

I have tried to give Dr Segal the benefit of the doubt. However, I can also say that I would have thought an expert in the field would have known or heard about the editor's note, given that it's been up for a year. She has not bothered to clarify what happened or what she thinks. the longer she...

Good point. even if you "help" it work you might not be expecting it to.

It's a shocker. I had not heard anything about this. From the cryptic announcement, it sounds like it was an interpersonal relations issue and not a research issue. but very hard to interpret.

Since they swapped outcomes to make sure it "worked," it wasn't clear to me how she could have been surprised. that seems to me to have been, let's say, not quite a true statement.

well, he hasn't actually made a change yet. he has promised to make it. on Wednesday, he said he was making it "now." it is Friday. perhaps he will not actually make the correction until after I send him another letter next week asking him to notify me when it finally happens.

Why sorry? I have no regrets! It's frustrating but endlessly fascinating to me to watch an entire cohort of professionals, many of them presumably smart, deluding themselves and being trapped in their fantasies and imposing harm on millions in the process. I have never witnessed anything like...

Just because some editors have been powerful enough to not back down doesn't mean he wasn't essentially forced by the total weakness and absurdity of his position. And sure, if other editors had also performed their normal job functions, things would be better now. But I still don't see why...

I wouldn't go overboard on praise for people who are forced to agree to perform their necessary job functions under duress. Remember that the editor first suggested it wasn't worth the bother because the data were ten years old. That's not an acceptable response. Then he also suggested I send in...

Nope, not just a quick e-mail, as far as I can tell. She did not respond to the letter I had sent to her previously. She only responded when I wrote to the editor of the journal and cc'd her on it, along with everyone else. It would have been appropriate to respond quickly to me after I had...

Ah, yes, well good point! By rights she should have to explain herself. But I doubt that will happen.

for the journal, yes. But I alerted Chew-Graham months ago and told her I would go to the journal to seek a correction. She did nothing.

I don't blame the review authors for not seeing an editor's note that does not seem to have been meant to be seen, given where it was placed. It is a different matter if the review authors fail to address this issue now that they have been alerted to it.

I have to agree with Jonathan here. Everyone is bombarded full-time with information--including clinicians. One of the things I'm trying to do, especially with the open letters and the cc-ing, is to create a public record available to review when this all comes tumbling down. I want to make sure...