1. Clicking here takes you to the 'News in Brief' post for w/c 25th Nov, Guest.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS News' started by Trish, Oct 17, 2018.

  1. inox

    inox Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    4,415
    Location:
    Norway
    And of course this bit is spectaculary untrue.

    It's controversial because it goes against patients experiences - and the main symptom of the illness.

    It's controversial - because the claims made goes against solid research, on the very bad effects exercise have on an ME-sick persons body.
     
  2. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    24,518
    Location:
    Norway
    Lillebeth Larun is from "Kunnskapssenteret", which only quite recently became a part of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. It wasn't when the review got started (if I've understood this correct, that is).
     
  3. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    21,952
    Location:
    Canada
    Because of this little tidbit, from Simon Wessely: "But before he joined the scientific establishment, Goldacre used to work for me."

    So a critic of bad science refuses to criticized textbook bad science because of a personal relationship with the architect of this bad science.

    That amounts to a food critic insisting that a chef's spaghetti with ketchup is fine cuisine and anyone institing otherwise is a hack.

    It's gonna leave a mark once the suspension of disbelief lifts and people wonder how often Goldacre did that.
     
    sea, ukxmrv, MEMarge and 17 others like this.
  4. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    21,952
    Location:
    Canada
    Wessely's research and colleagues have held monopoly on this disease for 2 decades. How is discussion being prevented when their personal beliefs of this disease literally make up the official guidelines and are the only research being significantly funded?

    Which, of course, they know is bullshit because they lie shamelessly.
     
    sea, MEMarge, Sean and 8 others like this.
  5. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,828
    Likes Received:
    59,608
    I have written to Ottersen.
     
    sea, Lisa108, ukxmrv and 31 others like this.
  6. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,653
    Likes Received:
    30,957
    Location:
    UK
    "
    The secret of Goldacre’s early success
    is simple. We love people getting it wrong. Watching people making fools of themselves is always more interesting..."

    "Goldacre’s skill is to use all these examples of epic ignorance or failures to draw out important principles of how science actually works, and how statistics should be used".

    has he read the paper? (ie PACE)

     
  7. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    33,649
    This is such a long thread, so apologies if this has already been noted before.

    In the Cochrane review on page 1 it states the following selection criteria for the studies under review ...
    upload_2018-11-6_23-44-27.png

    Yet the 2011 paper did not claim PACE to be a controlled trial ...

    https://www.s4me.info/threads/a-general-thread-on-the-pace-trial.807/page-11#post-90488

    Was it legitimate to include PACE in this review?

    ETA: I realise @Jonathan Edwards picked this up in another post earlier in that thread ...

    https://www.s4me.info/threads/a-general-thread-on-the-pace-trial.807/page-11#post-90478

    Just wondering if we are making sure to pick up on the same point this time around.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2018
  8. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    14,784
    Closer to 3 decades, starting in the late 1980s /early 90s.
     
  9. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,828
    Likes Received:
    59,608
    I doubt it was legitimate to include any of these trials since none of them were effectively controlled. A controlled trial is a trial that is adequately controlled. My memory from reviewing this was that none could be considered controlled trials, although PACE is the one I am most familiar with.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  10. inox

    inox Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    4,415
    Location:
    Norway
    Thank you :thumbup:

    I can't remember ever seeing his name in the "ME-debate" here, so they are really pulling ranks to defend their work.
     
  11. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    33,649
    So the reviewers effectively violated their own stated selection criteria, which they stated in their paper. Doesn't seem very scientific.
     
  12. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,268
    Likes Received:
    28,242
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Bit confused about doubt not legitimate. Is that a double negative or am I reading it wrong @Jonathan Edwards
     
  13. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,828
    Likes Received:
    59,608
    sorry, typo
     
  14. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator

    Messages:
    4,257
    Likes Received:
    20,856
    Location:
    UK
    The statement is interesting since it says selection needs to compare with treatments including "adaptive pacing therapy" which was a treatment made up especially for the pace trial. So they appear to have looked at available trials and then written the selection criteria to pick ones they want.

    You could argue that the statement they make is in its self inconsistent because it supports the use of a passive control (i.e. doing nothing) as a control which clearly is not capable of controlling for effects reporting biases and therefore not adequate.
     
  15. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    21,952
    Location:
    Canada
    They started making those claims in the late 80s but it's not clear when they began to gain legitimacy or when the control was officially passed to them. It seems earlier than at least 2003, when they were able to have approval for FINE, a clear sign that they already had enough influence to push their beliefs.

    Late 90s seems to be a turning point, when they got the insurers on board. But it'll be fascinating to read the whole story one day. A post-mortem to one of the biggest and cruelest blunders in medical history, driven by greed and hubris.
     
  16. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,016
    Likes Received:
    10,717
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    Just found this...
    Reviewing_Reviews_Wessely1998.png
     
  17. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,828
    Likes Received:
    59,608
  18. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    21,952
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm sure he's trying to make a point here but I don't see it. This is incredibly amateur work you'd expect from a first year university student.

    At best it shows biomedical researchers do biomedical research and psychiatric researchers do psychiatric research.

    I guess this is for his mind-body mission in life to place psychiatry as the master discipline of medicine, that the division should not be there in his opinion, even though reality says exactly the opposite.
     
    Hutan, EzzieD, Snowdrop and 5 others like this.
  19. large donner

    large donner Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    8,563
    What's the point of this paper and when was it written? I don't understand the significance of it to us.
     
    rvallee likes this.
  20. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,828
    Likes Received:
    59,608
    Irony. It neatly explains why the Cochrane review on exercise therapy is not up to much.
     
    Hutan, MEMarge, rvallee and 8 others like this.

Share This Page