Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

rvallee said:
It was to put pressure on Cochrane and prevent the withdrawal from happening. Which worked.
Click to expand...

I think it was also a way for them to ensure that whatever happens now, their narrative is likely to be the one that gets reported. If Cochrane decides to go ahead with the withdrawal after reading Larun's revisions, the press coverage will probably read "Cochrane caves to patient protests" rather than "Cochrane scraps flawed review".
 
Stewart said:
I think it was also a way for them to ensure that whatever happens now, their narrative is likely to be the one that gets reported. If Cochrane decides to go ahead with the withdrawal after reading Larun's revisions, the press coverage will probably read "Cochrane caves to patient protests" rather than "Cochrane scraps flawed review".
Click to expand...
Or, even worse, given the publicity about Cochrane falling apart at the top, the Cochrane board decide to use this as an opportunity to 'prove' they are strong and united and stand up for science against antiscience agitators by reversing the the decision to scrap it. And throw us under the bus in the process.
 
Trish said:
Or, even worse, given the publicity about Cochrane falling apart at the top, the Cochrane board decide to use this as an opportunity to 'prove' they are strong and united and stand up for science against antiscience agitators by reversing the the decision to scrap it.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, they'll realize that the best way to stand up for science against antiscience agitators is to go ahead and withdraw the review.
 
Last edited:
I am probably way behind everyone else on this, but it has been hard keeping up lately, and harder to understand what is going on.

It is not necessary to find any conflict between the "facts" as reported by Kelland and the addendum by Cochrane. Kelland states that the paper is to be withdrawn. Cochrane state that the paper will be withdrawn unless certain conditions are met. If those upon whom the conditions are placed have indicated to Kelland that they are unable or unwilling to comply with the conditions then Cochrane may not have changed position and the reporting is accurate but not complete.

But you probably already knew that.
 
Forbin said:
Hopefully, they'll realize that the best way to stand up for science against antiscience agitators is to go ahead and withdraw the review.
Click to expand...

This is the only thing that can preserve Cochrane's reputation long-term.

However this is all happening very short-term and in frantic cover your ass mode. They are basically sacrificing the organisation to preserve a lie that has been used to harm millions of people (and save billions, which is totally coincidental).

I'm sure they'll win a few battles until then but this very visible quadruple-checking and thumbs-upping of egregiously and obviously flawed science is the kind of thing that breaks an organisation whose value is trust and integrity.

Organisations preserve themselves above all. But here one organisation is being demolished to preserve bigger organisations for whom accountability will take the form of very expensive legal problems and a crisis of confidence in the institution of medicine.

Cover-ups can go a long way but reality always asserts itself in the long run. They're just hoping to be long gone when this blows up.
 
Inara said:
Ahhh. I was wondering about something the past few days, and here comes the answer.

I adjusted swiftly to my restrictions, including keeping PEM as small as possible (well...). One could call this "sickness behavior". I often see how people look. Sometimes they seem aghast or embarrassed. (Please note I am not severe, and I look healthy.) Authorities called it "aggravational and demonstrative behavior". Since people's and authorities' reactions cause unpleasant feelings in myself, I was earnestly considering to play the healthy role - at my expense of course. After a second thought I decided it's not worth jeopardizing my health further due to people who can't bear to see sickness.

I think maybe that's one problem: Today, most people don't want to see unpleasant things. Maybe like Prince Sidharta's father who wanted to protect his child from any suffering (which can't work). It seems that sick people should not show their sickness because it reminds the others of suffering - which is an unpleasant feeling and therefore unwelcome. À la "If we have to pay you, grrr - could you please not be a pain in the ass otherwise?"
Click to expand...

Maybe my remark here is off topic, and I've currently no power to read all of the rest of this thread before writing a comment, so please forgive me if I'm spoiling the thread

However, I do ponder how the term sickness behavior is used in English.
When I studied (a rather long time ago), most literature was in English and back then "sickness behavior" was believed to be caused by cytokines, was defined as a set of behaviors like lethargy, withdrawal from the herd, and diminished interest for food. It was thought to interact with psychological concepts such as for instance Locus of Control and more or less a "biologist" (i.e. a sociobiologist) alternative to the sociological concept of sick role, from long before cytokines were discovered. Since then I've seen several references to sickness behavior being caused/mediated also through the nervous system.

Now, it may seem as if the concepts have contaminated each other?

Edit:
An updated view on Sickness Behavior:
(I don't know how much it's become generally accepted.)

image


Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002276
 
Last edited:
obeat said:
Who will he debate with? He is trying to CBT everything! Surely that's a big agenda he's trying to force on healthcare. Isn't he an activist for the CBT lobby???
Click to expand...

Sharpe has done a lot of consulting for the insurance industry, arguing to deny benefits and payments to ME patients. He did the same in advising against government disability benefits. Those are basically two of the biggest big money agendas. His entire career is built on this. He faces enormous loss of professional reputation once this breaks. He has both a personal and a professional agenda driving everything he does.

He's just projecting. That's why this lot makes accusations of bullying and anti-science ideological stubbornness: that's what they're doing.
 
chrisb said:
It is not necessary to find any conflict between the "facts" as reported by Kelland and the addendum by Cochrane. Kelland states that the paper is to be withdrawn. Cochrane state that the paper will be withdrawn unless certain conditions are met. If those upon whom the conditions are placed have indicated to Kelland that they are unable or unwilling to comply with the conditions then Cochrane may not have changed position and the reporting is accurate but not complete.
Click to expand...
Kelland’s report states:
In their Oct. 15 email, addressed to Larun, Churchill and Tovey wrote: “We are ... temporarily withdrawing your review to allow you and your co-authors time to adequately address the feedback received. Consequently, your review will shortly be removed from the Cochrane Library.”
Click to expand...

The above suggests that Cochrane had made the decision to withdraw the review, and that it would not be reinstated unless Larun was able to adequately address feedback.

The new note below the review states:
This review is subject to an ongoing process of review and revision following the submission of a formal complaint to the Editor in Chief. Cochrane considers all feedback and complaints carefully, and revises or updates reviews when it is appropriate. The review author team have advised us that a resubmission of this review is imminent. A decision on the status of this review will be made once this resubmission has been through editorial process, which we anticipate will be towards the end of November 2018.
Click to expand...

Withdrawing the review until the author has adequately addressed the feedback is not the same as allowing the review to stand until the author has attempted to address the feedback with a new submission. It therefore appears that Tovey and Churchill have been persuaded to change their minds and give Larun more time.
 
Amw66 said:
The question is by whom ?
Click to expand...

How the hell can they resubmit, assure sound and well considered peer review and make a decision on republication by the end of November. This whole thing just seems bizarre.

From Toveys statement it seems that Larun explicitly expressed that her group would be able to resubmit before the end of November.

Did she have a review B sitting and waiting just incase?

The original review was bunk, just retract it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom