CBT combined with music therapy for chronic fatigue following Epstein-Barr virus infection in adolescents: a feasibility study, 2020, Wyller et al

Kalliope said:
New blog post from Nina E. Steinkopf: Music therapy study: BMJ refuses to publish critical comments

Doubt, uncertainty and criticism are the driving forces in science. Ensuring that patients are not harmed in research should be a top priority. We can only hope that BMJ’s editors change their minds and see the value in readers getting involved.
Click to expand...
I remember it was noticed at the time that the open peer review was not available but I notice now that there is a link to the peer review history saying they decided to exceptionally not make it open (a generic statement but that's what it says). Maybe it was already there but I don't remember this note about exceptional withholding of peer reviews, despite the journal's policy of open reviews. Then again my memory is terrible so whatever.

There's a note somewhere that says it was "externally peer-reviewed", which I have no idea what is supposed to mean. I guess it means something like "yeah we publish this but do not stand by any of it don't ask us we just work here". Even though the editorial board actually had to lean on this. Complete rubbish.

The publication history completely hides that this was a re-publication, the small notice at the bottom is very easy to miss. Even less obvious than Cochrane's notice that the review is inadequate. Incredible display of consciousness of guilt over how inappropriate this all is.

The very definition of a whitewash. Beyond unethical and straight into corrupt territory. This is not how science works. This is not what medicine is supposed to be about. This is politics and ideology, nothing but pushing through something that obviously does not deserve to be shown publicly other than as an example of technical and moral bankruptcy in medical research.
 
rvallee said:
There's a note somewhere that says it was "externally peer-reviewed", which I have no idea what is supposed to mean. I guess it means something like "yeah we publish this but do not stand by any of it don't ask us we just work here"
Click to expand...
Reminds me of something I heard today about Fauci. This was in connection with a study on hydroxochloroquine:

“That study is a flawed study,” Fauci said.
When Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) interjected to say the study was peer-reviewed, Fauci replied: “It doesn’t matter. You can peer review something that’s a bad study.”

Source
 
Trial by Error by David Tuller: Update on BMJ's CBT-Music Therapy Study (h/t Steinkopf and Tack)

The investigators’ new version of the paper is still trash and it still stinks, for multiple reasons–including some that marred the first version. But at least it does not misrepresent itself as a feasibility study. However, in violation of its own stated policy, BMJ Paediatrics Open is refusing to post the peer reviews for this replacement version–even as it tells me in its latest letter (see below) that readers can be “reassured” about the robustness of its peer review process.
 
Kalliope said:
Trial by Error by David Tuller: Update on BMJ's CBT-Music Therapy Study (h/t Steinkopf and Tack)

The investigators’ new version of the paper is still trash and it still stinks, for multiple reasons–including some that marred the first version. But at least it does not misrepresent itself as a feasibility study. However, in violation of its own stated policy, BMJ Paediatrics Open is refusing to post the peer reviews for this replacement version–even as it tells me in its latest letter (see below) that readers can be “reassured” about the robustness of its peer review process.
Click to expand...
The comments from BMJ are excessively insulting and reflect a culture of ineptitude at the very goals of science. This was a fully politicized process, nothing scientific or legitimate here.

The idea that this new secretive "peer review", which no one can see, should be trusted despite being even less credible than the previous process is absurd. It's the ultimate in "we investigated ourselves and have found no wrongdoing". The circumstances demand excessive transparency and they respond with even more secretive procedures and a blatantly insulting response.

And no mention of the peer reviewer who admitted not to have read the paper. Which pretty much suggests that this is an acceptable practice at BMJ, raising the question of how often it happens. Maybe it's standard. Maybe it's nearly universal. Maybe not. Maybe it only happens with patient populations that are widely hated. Who can tell? Who decides who is worthy of basic respect and who can be treated with contempt?

Really shows how fully de-humanized we have been, that we are not deserving of the most basic respect for the most fundamental requirements of credible science. This is not acceptable in the least, and it is simply casually dismissed as irrelevant.
 
Trial By Error: My Letter to BMJ Paediatrics Open about the CBT-Music Therapy Study
On November 12, I received my latest letter from BMJ’s so-called research integrity office about the pile of potential research misconduct otherwise known as the pediatric study of cognitive behavior therapy and music therapy as a treatment for chronic fatigue after acute EBV. This study was published in April by BMJ Paediatrics Open and immediately came under sharp and justified criticism–including from me.

Earlier this week, I posted the letter I received from the research integrity office. I am posting it again below, along with my response. Of course, my beef isn’t with the research integrity coordinator. She’s just doing her job, presumably at the direction of BMJ higher-ups. The fault in this disaster lies squarely with those at the top, who seem to prefer obfuscation than transparency when addressing methodological and ethical lapses in papers published under the BMJ umbrella. At least, that has been my experience.
Click to expand...
https://www.virology.ws/2020/11/25/...trics-open-about-the-cbt-music-therapy-study/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom