Cochrane backtracking

Interesting fact, the judge at the NICE Judicial Review in 2009:

http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2014/uk-governments-three-pronged-strategy-for-cfsme.pdf

p 14-15

"The Full Hearing was held on 11th and 12th February 2009 before The Honourable Mr Justice Simon and it failed on all counts. Before he became a Judge, Peregrine Simon QC worked out of Brick Court, a leading set of chambers that acts for the insurance industry against claimants."

 

"Is being seen as a victory for activists" was a particularly damning spin since they were preempting the decision and as such did not have any actual comments from anyone.

It was not particularly true either considering it could still go either way (as it did) and it only represented speculation that would have been a small step forward but far short of a victory. Even a withdrawal would not be a victory. An actual competent review would be. A statement that the current review was flawed (so beyond withdrawal and into disavowal) would have been victory. This was purely speculative yet presented as fact.

Very, very poor journalism. I don't know how this happened but Kelland was doing PR for them and I hope she is hold to account for it. If she wants to be a PR representative that's her choice but Reuters committed journalistic malpractice here.

(have not sent my letter yet, brain energy lacking)

 

Well if the Lancet and the BMJ plus people like Crawley and Sharpe are anything to go by its seems the countless complaints and even peer reviewed critiques have no effect in terms of worrying the editors over how stupid they will look.

They have all looked ridiculous for years in our eyes..And...??

Has Richard Horton or Trish Groves displayed any concern over looking ridiculous?

Something really has to tip the balance before they care. Truth isn't important to them, power being on their side is.

We cannot retract papers for them, only they can do it and they damn well know it.

I think it comes down to "so what if you are right, we don't care neither does anyone else so what you gonna do about it next"?

If Cochrane do not resubmit the next Larun paper after giving her four weeks to rewrite it (which in itself seems a strange thing to do) then it could help tip the balance.

Lets say they do not resubmit it will they leave that area blank in terms of having a Cochrane review on ME or commission someone else to do one?

However, something has to move before any of those others at the Lancet and the BMJ do. Why should they budge, as I already said they know we cant retract their papers ourselves, only they can.

 

Realise my post in another thread just as relevant here, so this is the link:

https://www.s4me.info/threads/cochr...emporarily-withdrawn.6225/page-31#post-116305

 

Compared with the Royal Courts of Justice Judicial Review nine or so years ago regarding CBT I would suggest that there's been enough time to analyse the judgment and given that (arguably) the ground is safer for patients objecting to the BPS crowd than then, it's time to discuss the prospect of taking advocacy a step further (as the BPS crowd are obviously not going to give up without a fight).

It doesn't mean I'm suggesting going to court tomorrow over anything but I am certainly suggesting that we should be having a mindset of contemplating legal action against a group of people who, in some cases, have openly lied against critics (I've asked Bristol University a few times about Crawley and they've failed to defend her).

 

Bear in mind this is a public thread, and i'll bet money they are reading our posts.

 

Yes but (terrible cliché time coming up) 'nothing ventured, nothing gained', omelettes/eggs, and even Del Boy himself 'He who dares wins'.

I understand that it is a risk but another level must be stepped up to at some point.

 

Well, yes.

 

Michael Sharpe I suggest you read the S4ME forum.

 

Reality deniers are not interested in learning about reality, they are interested in finding new ways to deny it and better ways to convert others to denial.

 

Too true. I read a study that said that when people who are pretty much convinced read an opposing view, it actually strengthens their belief that they are correct. As they read, they firm up their justifications and come up with reasons why the opposing data is incorrect... reaffirming the original belief.

The only answer is to always accept new information as possible -- and that includes us, too. Otherwise, as it turns out, human beings radicalize themselves.

 

Indeed, the science of persuasion is very complex.
I could spend a weeks worth of brain power going into it here but suffice it to say facts change no ideologue's mind.
In the end we need a disease mechanism or ideally treatment to change things, not to say we should not fight for our lives but the watershed moment will likely come when we have a drug that treats people, the narrative then becomes believe the shysters or take this drug and get better (we may need both a disease mechanism and a drug). They will still likely choose to believe their lies but their credibility will sink like a lead balloon. That said we should pursue all avenues because who knows when one can lead to a breakthrough

 

He probably is. He loves to pretend he's "over" this research because of the "abuse" but his career is built on this and his contempt and denial of its consequences are public record (as well as private records, as emails can be subpoenaed and FOIed years later). They all know they only have political pressure to save their reputation and it's little effort to keep track of what we're doing since it's also public and relatively low volume.

Doesn't matter. Reality has a way of asserting itself. Even if it's recognized years after they are retired, their legacy is already set in stone as frauds. They willfully and deliberately hurt people chasing a pipe dream and abused their authority to avoid accountability.

But that's not where the most important accountability will have to be. Mediocre researchers chasing delusions exist everywhere. I'm sure there are some geographers out there who are flat Earthers. The big question is how their obviously fraudulent work was held up as good science despite the flaws being public knowledge for years at this point and their responses to those flaws amounting essentially to "well that's what we did and if you don't like it go ahead and do your own trial".

NICE, MRC, NHS, Lancet, Cochrane, PLOS, BMJ, SMC and the rest will all have to answer to allowing political pressure to overrule science in a way that lead to the massive suffering of millions as well as who knows how many deaths.

 

Quite so, and the government policy spans decades under the reign of all main political parties, all culpable.

 

I'd say it's the other around, but that's a distinction without a difference. There is a sentiment that too many people are freeloading on government money and that undeserving patients should be excluded from health care because they waste resources that only "good patients" should benefit from, i.e. patients whose health problems can be fixed.

It's austerity politics, mixed in with some form of just world fallacy. Good people don't get sick. If you got sick and are still sick despite being told how to manage being sick, then to hell with you because clearly only bad people continue being sick and demanding help.

The psychosocial approach just happens to fit in perfectly. It creates the perfect blend of illusion of scientific integrity along with the ability to get away with saying anything they want without accountability. They manage to basically move a few commas here and there whenever they are exposed and just keep on pretending it's serious works. The scrabble of made-up acronyms that are all iterations on the same old tripe of hysteria make that case better than anything.

It's a modern modest proposal. You either work or retreat from good society in silence and shame because it's your fault for not being fixable.

 

You've got a way with words @rvallee ... just so.

 

I'm interested in politics and see a lot of the same folly going on there. In Trump. Brexit. Italy. Now Brazil. Obviously bad decisions made by mediocre, corrupt people that people keep voting for even though it directly hurts them. Just-world fallacy is a commonly used rationalization for inaction in the face of injustice. I see those words so often, in trying to explain for example why the US was content with letting ~45K die each year because they are denied access to health care.

It's amazing how similar the psychosocial disaster is to the Trump error and the breakdown of American society. The suspension of disbelief is just incredible. All the evidence is plain as day. It's just ignored because those who can hold them accountable have no interest in doing that.

I think there's this idea that medical professionals rise above this. But they don't. Because as they have insisted in recent days, they're only humans. Systems are supposed to correct for those human flaws but here they amplify them instead.

Seeing some of the ideas that Gerada and Wessely have, as high-profile leaders in UK medicine, really makes that point. Those systemic failures are mainly a failure of leadership, or lack thereof. Same as in politics. Bad leaders make for bad systems and medicine has a very strong component of in-groups and out-groups that can somehow equate an insulting hashtag and rude patients with the lifelong suffering and death of millions.

Our disaster is really all about politics. That's rarely good. And why we need science funding ASAP.

 

So if a giant group of humans are suffering and dying as a result of systemic issues in medical practice, this is equivalent to three days of feeling called out on Twitter.

Black-and-white morality is endemic -- for some reason, moreso when appeals to authority are ushered in. I'm guessing that the frame of mind that values authoritarian principles is also more likely to be subject to absolutist thinking, e.g. all bad things are equally bad, and all people who do one action you consider Bad are now Bad in all their actions henceforth, regardless of context?

Moral absolutism means your guy is always good -- not because he does things that bring more good into the world, or because he improves people's circumstances, but because he is Your Guy... and since you are Good, he is Good, and that means everything he does is, by definition, Good, regardless of context.

And people who think in this manner can flip -- and then it gets very, very ugly.

I've observed this in advocacy, too -- people seem to want a god to elevate. I've been asked more than once or twice or ten times which scientist will save us. We're desperate and brain fogged and emotionally and physically exhausted, and it's possible that may make us more likely to slip into this kind of thinking.

We MUST resist oversimplification, insist on knowing the facts before we act, and be sure we aren't just playing Follow the Leader.