Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

https://in.reuters.com/article/us-h...mid-patient-activist-complaints-idINKCN1MR2PI

Reuters:
Exclusive: Science journal to withdraw chronic fatigue review amid patient activist complaints

Kate Kelland

LONDON, Oct 17 (Reuters) - A respected science journal is to withdraw a much-cited review of evidence on an illness known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) amid fierce criticism and pressure from activists and patients.

The decision, described by the scientists involved as “disproportionate and poorly justified”, is being seen as a victory for activists in a research field plagued by uncertainty and dispute over whether CFS, also known as myalgic encephalopathy (ME), has physical and psychological elements.

Emails seen by Reuters show editors at the influential Cochrane Review journal asking researchers who conducted the analysis, which was published in April 2017, to agree to it being temporarily withdrawn...

 

and if they don't agree what happens?

ETA

The article seems to be vague/contractory.

They state they asked the authors for permission, and asked for a statement, then say it has been withdrawn, then says it would be highly unusual......

I am left confused and unclear as to whether it has actually been withdrawn or if they have just asked the authors if they can please have permission to do so.

 

OMG this is big

 

It breaks my heart to know that Bob is not here to see this. He contributed so much to that. (@vickster )

This could be huge, especially for the NICE review. Thanks to @Esther12 , @dave30th , @Tom Kindlon and all you others who have been a driving force in this.

 

Merged thread

https://in.reuters.com/article/us-h...mid-patient-activist-complaints-idINKCN1MR2PI

Woah! I wasn't expecting this. Good end to my day!

 

Wow! Out of the blue! At least for me

 

Yes Colin. Reviews should be based on scientific and clinical evidence. That's why the review is being withdrawn.

Huge news by the way. No more hiding behind Cochranes skirts.

 

Not to be a cynic, but if they intend to 'allow [...] time to adequately address the feedback', who decides what is adequate here? Without an actual scientist from the real world overseeing this process I would not be surprised if they just added some BS sentence to the tune of 'while some people feel that what has consistently made us money and harmed patients severly is not cool, we think it is really cool because there is nothing we can offer patients - having successfully funneled funding from real research over to our pockets for decades - and we fear we might be liable in some way for what we have done if we ever admit that our brand of institutionalized violence is actually just that' (in their words, obviously, including continuing to call themselves 'scientists' and all those funny little word-redefinitions their ilk likes to come up with in their spare time) and then proceed to roll out the same antiscientific crap as before.

 

Also the article manages to state:

suggesting he has no conflicts of interest at all. But if he was at the MRC in 2007 was he not part of funding the PACE trial?? Rubbish reporting.

 

We're in interesting times!

Maybe one day patients' objections will be reported accurately.

 

I have a feeling it is a bit like

'You are just going out side and may be some time.'

They have had a year already to address the feedback from the update review that got trashed. They are now having their previous version withdrawn.

I don;t think this is likely to reappear.

 

What happened to the update review - will it still be published?

 

This is awesome. Good timing too I think. Article was a bit rubbish, but the original message was clear, if you ignore all the added opinions.

 

Someone authoritative has said not but I cannot give an official statement. It is pretty unlikely to get published if this is withdrawn since it also has the PACE authors on it as authors.

 

Note that there are 2 separate reviews led by Larun et al. One involved individual patient data and has not so far been published. The other used pooled data. It was the only one that has been published so presumably is the one that is being withdrawn (it is not possible to withdraw something that hasn't been published)

 

The article is pretty terrible - Blakemore is talking rubbish, all the old stuff about us attacking researchers, and the objections being on the basis of we don't like being classed as having a mental illness. Someone should send him Vink's critique.

But the news is great.

 

Where's @dave30th?
I was with him a few hours ago at Houses of Parliament - having watched the swans in St James's Park for a bit..

 

Can only assume that if they don’t now address the issues that have been raised then the temporary withdrawal will continue and effectively become permanent. Given they have no answer to the criticisms they have been painted into a corner