Seven
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
saves insurance Billions? In US there is a 2 year cap disability for mental vs non mental. So by supporting CBT they save having to pay for years to disable people.
-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome' 2017, Larun et al. - Recent developments, 2018-19
Elizabeth Edwards
Established Member
I haven't read the emails yet, but I understood the choice of phrasing to mean that they would withdraw it ONLY because of the practical difficulty in that the authors couldn't all agree on the changes, therefore there was no conclusive document to publish; NOT because Cochrane was declaring they believe the whole thing to be invalid - ie retracting their belief in it as a statement of fact/truth.
Elizabeth Edwards
Established Member
Exactly!
Elizabeth Edwards
Established Member
IMO, any new review MUST only include trials that undertake physical monitoring of patients' objective symptoms, before, during and after. This is vital for harm minimisation, and yet is the key element that is almost always ignored by the so-called 'biopsychosocial' practitioners. In practice, the 'bio-' part of the equation is consistently ignored, but is the most crucial in terms of whether patients will derive any lasting benefit from the therapy in terms of improved functionality/ ability to participate in normal life activities again.
Last edited:
large donner
Guest
There may be some kind of logic in that. However if the authors cannot agree what they think they are claiming it should never have been published in the first place claiming the treatments proved evidence of being moderately effective etc.
Either Cochrane adjudicate over things they accept to publish or they don't. Once they realise a published paper is worthless in its claims and will affect health care policy and makes no attempt to assess potential harms of a treatment it should be a straightforward retraction.
If this was an electrical goods item or a car part would it make sense for Volkswagen for example to say to the manufacturer, "ah just go see if another car company will buy it from you even if its potentially dangerous"?
Last edited:
Wonko
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
My oven is moderately effective at hammering nails, that doesn't mean that I should recommend it is used for that purpose. Especially for those that aren't physically capable of picking up a large kitchen appliance and wielding it in a fashion necessary for knocking in nails.
Even, and this is important, no one has yet figured out that many smaller objects could be used more effectively, because the 'experts' (who just happen to manufacture ovens) insist that the best available tool is an oven, no one has examined the nail insertion characteristics or rocks, or a hammer, or even yoghurt..
Even, and this is important, no one has yet figured out that many smaller objects could be used more effectively, because the 'experts' (who just happen to manufacture ovens) insist that the best available tool is an oven, no one has examined the nail insertion characteristics or rocks, or a hammer, or even yoghurt..
large donner
Guest
Esther Crawley wasn't embarrassed to do the LP study, but then that had extra dimensions to it. It was carried out on children potentially without the correct informed consent and the participants are sworn to secrecy regarding the nature of the "treatments".
Maybe that is the key. Perhaps if the LP study is withdrawn rather than retracted in the future from its publishers Cochrane could publish it once the authors all agree how effective it is according to their own logic.
large donner
Guest
What if you wanted to make nail sized holes in your oven, then what?
Wonko
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Clearly I would then need two ovens, significant surgery, and at least 6 months heavy training, or one of those augmentation suits beloved of alien loading docks.
In a culture that hasn't invented a hammer yet these could be significant obstacles.
It's just simpler to research the alternatives, starting with rubber chickens and working up to atomic weapons.
Given the time, resources, and sheer devastation this could cause it's probably a good idea to come up with an alternate design choice.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It's almost inevitable that proponents of spiritual-based alternative medicine will use this opportunity opened by psychobabble-based alternative medicine. It will be quite interesting, to watch people slowly come to that realization and be confused about why people can't tell the difference now that they erased all distinctions. Slippery slopes don't distinguish.
For all practical matters, aside from intent and ideology there is no functional difference between the psychosocial ideology and any of those fringe belief systems, the evidence base is just as hollow and the methodology just as poor. The only genuine difference is the appearance of credible science, which is entirely a matter of editing and terminology. That's very easy to abuse by motivated people.
The Cochrane section on CFS listed, until recently, a paper on Chinese herbal medicine. I saw a few papers on acupuncture and other types get published as well that had all the language and appearance of credible science. Just wait until China uses that wedge to its full extent in its promotion of Chinese traditional medicine. They have every reason to, it's been normalized already and it's likely to be the turning point in realizing the full horror of what's been done.
Edit: The Chinese herbal medicine was not in the GET review but rather listed as a relevant paper (1 of a handful...).
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Think there's a typo there, and you meant that Cochrane had a Traditional Chinese Medicine review for CFS, rather than the review on GET?
Robert 1973
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
"in the later stages of treatment patients are encouraged to increase their activity (which must ultimately be the aim of any treatment)"
Wessely, David, Butler, & Chalder – 1990
It has opened the door to an unending tsunami of blatant woo.
The sooner we can get the rest of medicine and science to understand that, the sooner we will win.
The only point omitted in the drafting of that was "whether in this world, or the next".
Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The difficulty is that such a review would be one sentence long. "There were no trials of adequate standard."
If it is any comfort I can point out that the UK NICE committee have a document from me that makes the various points raised in recent posts, including the fact that homeopathy would get the same result and that failure of peer review has let through a mass of meaningless material, and which also references the two Vink/Vink-Neise reviews that do what Cochrane should have done. The document will be officially published as part of the NICE review process.
It remains true that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. On the other hand if the objective is to bring the various points raised to the attention of those making decisions, I think it has proved possible to achieve that.
Last edited:
Thank you
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
There is no elephant in the room, what the hell are you talking about!?!
Daisymay
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
This!
I've just read through this whole thread to remind me of just what has happened and try to get the order of events sorted:
May:
We have some of the correspondence between Tovey and the review authors up to the end of May, thanks to @Marit @memhj who posted the e-mails here.
It was clear from those e-mails that Tovey was not willing to publish the revised review, and had independent reviewers agreeing with him, and that he proposed the review be withdrawn on the grounds of a failure to agree on the new version. The e-mails show the authors arguing with him and not agreeing to it being either amended or withdrawn.
1st June
Tovey then retired at the end of May and the new Editor in Chief of Cochrane, was appointed. Tovey had indicated in the correspondence in May that he had included the new editor in the process of reviewing the review.
6th-14th June
Between 6th and 14th June, @Caroline Struthers had some brief correspondence with two members of Cochrane's governing board and others, published here and posted on this thread here.
On 14th June she was told that:
''the review is currently in revision. Once it is ready, it will be copy-edited and the plan is to publish it in early July.''
17th June
So it looks like between the beginning of June and 17th June, the new editor decided to give the review authors yet another extension, rather than deciding to withdraw or retract the paper.
The question is, do we have access to the correspondence? @Kalliope, you mentioned you have some of the correspondence. Do you have any from after 1st June?
And what is happening now? Why another long extension?
May:
We have some of the correspondence between Tovey and the review authors up to the end of May, thanks to @Marit @memhj who posted the e-mails here.
It was clear from those e-mails that Tovey was not willing to publish the revised review, and had independent reviewers agreeing with him, and that he proposed the review be withdrawn on the grounds of a failure to agree on the new version. The e-mails show the authors arguing with him and not agreeing to it being either amended or withdrawn.
1st June
Tovey then retired at the end of May and the new Editor in Chief of Cochrane, was appointed. Tovey had indicated in the correspondence in May that he had included the new editor in the process of reviewing the review.
6th-14th June
Between 6th and 14th June, @Caroline Struthers had some brief correspondence with two members of Cochrane's governing board and others, published here and posted on this thread here.
On 14th June she was told that:
''the review is currently in revision. Once it is ready, it will be copy-edited and the plan is to publish it in early July.''
17th June
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/full
So it looks like between the beginning of June and 17th June, the new editor decided to give the review authors yet another extension, rather than deciding to withdraw or retract the paper.
The question is, do we have access to the correspondence? @Kalliope, you mentioned you have some of the correspondence. Do you have any from after 1st June?
And what is happening now? Why another long extension?