Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome' 2017, Larun et al. - Recent developments, 2018-19

Michiel Tack said:
I don't think this is good news. I'm afraid they'll just tweak it a little and that the main flaw (a focus on subjective outcomes in unblinded trials with inadequate controls) isn't going to be changed.
Click to expand...
Always thought the fight was going to come down to this.

They cannot deliver by actual robust scientific standards, so they will arbitrarily lower the standards until they can meet them.

It is even worse than that. They are not even merely weakening or ignoring the basic methodology of science, which is learning how to distinguish between the subjective and objective influences on our perceptions and reasonings. They are completely inverting it.

This cannot end well, for anybody. :(
 
I think the main problem is that this flaw - a focus on subjective outcomes in unblinded trials with inadequate controls - is so widespread. If it was just a thing of ME/CFS researchers, then we would have a good chance of being heard. But this is all over the place. Accepting it as a major flaw would embarrass so many researchers and clinicians. And it would make psychological interventions much harder to study.
 
I expected the worst possible outcome because the issue is far bigger than ME/CFS, it's all psychosocial trials. The whole thing would need to be torn down and there is no way that the establishment is going to do willingly do that to itself. It would expose the entire rotten edifice of psychosocial interventions. I've suspected for many years that CBT doesn't work for anything except simple phobia and even at that the C part is of no use.
 
Rick Sanchez said:
Sadly, it looks like we are heavily affected by an issue that is so much bigger than just ME/CFS.

Cochrane acknowledging that non-blinded studies that rely entirely on subjective outcome measures are problematic would have disastrous consequences for their entire brand. Since they would have to accept the fact that many of their reviews are entirely useless, which doesn't exactly play well with their reputation of being the gold-standard of medicine.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. We are asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I was a Cochrane turkey once, but have no loyalty to my turkey ex-colleagues who insist on clinging to the wreckage of the great idea gone wrong that the Cochrane Collaboration has become, and the harm they have done. Their reviews are unwieldy, unusable and, as you say, mainly useless. Cochrane reviews on topics of importance to patients (eg. the treatment of people with ME) could be used as effective campaign documents to help drive up standards in future primary research. They could have been the organisation to champion the cause of patients by pointing out the poor quality and blatant COI in trials such as PACE which is misleading policy makers and doctors, and has harmed so many patients. But instead Cochrane tolerate the COI of their review authors, arguing they are better than other journals as if that makes the COI OK. They also completely ignore COI and poor methodology (eg. relying on subjective outcomes in non-blinded studies) in the studies included in their reviews.
 
chrisb said:
This from Wiki is of concern, and could account for quite a lot:


Wikipedia[edit]
Wikipedia and Cochrane collaborate to increase the incorporation of Cochrane research into Wikipedia articles and provide Wikipedia editors with resources for interpreting medical data.[40] Cochrane and John Wiley and Sons, publisher of Cochrane reviews, make one hundred free Cochrane accounts available to Wikipedia medical editors—the financial value of which has been estimated by Cochrane at between thirty thousand and eighty thousand dollars per annum—and pay a nominal stipend and travel expenses to support a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane.[41]
Click to expand...
Uh. I wonder if that accounts for the dismal wikipedia articles. Likely at least in part. It's hard to explain why there are such strong opinions about a topic most people don't care about at all.
 
strategist said:
Is there any realistic chance that we get our own special report on Cochrane?
Click to expand...
That seems to be the logical course. An accurate review would be rejected but it would at least force them to explain the thinking that they mostly leave to implication. I'm not even sure how to even have the green light since the current mental disorders group is obviously the wrong place but the right group (I think it's the complex chronic diseases?) would simply reject the proposal outright. Maybe it can be done regardless. After all it's supposed to be a "collaboration" project.

Only problem is, as always: who can do it? It's a pretty big effort for something that is guaranteed to be rejected. I still think it's worth spending the funds for, it would certainly strengthen the case for future lawsuits, but can't really think of who could do it knowing this.
 
Last edited:
Sean said:
Always thought the fight was going to come down to this.

They cannot deliver by actual robust scientific standards, so they will arbitrarily lower the standards until they can meet them.

It is even worse than that. They are not even merely weakening or ignoring the basic methodology of science, which is learning how to distinguish between the subjective and objective influences on our perceptions and reasonings. They are completely inverting it.

This cannot end well, for anybody. :(
Click to expand...
This is what I expect and frankly it opens up serious questions about why this took over a year to get around.

If all they're doing, and it is very likely, is tweak around the edges, what explains the fact that it took so long? My guess is they just don't care much, the outcome was predetermined, but it nonetheless makes them look bad. If you send someone with the task of highlighting a few words on a handful of pages and they take 2 weeks to get back to you, you really have to question their work process.
 
Michiel Tack said:
Accepting it as a major flaw would embarrass so many researchers and clinicians. And it would make psychological interventions much harder to study.
Click to expand...
Sounds good. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

It's pretty amazing how there is widespread acknowledgement of the crisis of replicability alongside a complete refusal to do anything about it, even when given the opportunity to make incremental changes. Remarkable. The lack of oversight here is just a massive embarrassment, there is simply no accountability.
 
rvallee said:
This is what I expect and frankly it opens up serious questions about why this took over a year to get around.

If all they're doing, and it is very likely, is tweak around the edges, what explains the fact that it took so long? My guess is they just don't care much, the outcome was predetermined, but it nonetheless makes them look bad. If you send someone with the task of highlighting a few words on a handful of pages and they take 2 weeks to get back to you, you really have to question their work process.
Click to expand...

Someone may have just thought they had to bag up a little doggie poop in a bag and dispose of it until it went further and further upstairs and they realised they were living in a sewer.

Now they think they can stop the immense stink by not letting people into the house and just closing the door.
 
Last edited:
Who are 'they'?

The Cochrane central editors, or the norwegian-based review team?

I don't think we can make any assumptions about what the new Cochrane editor's take on this is yet, even if I don't have my hopes up for a good outcome...

I strongly suspect that what is happening behind the sceenes up until now, is the Norwegian Institute of public Health leaning in with all their weight in keeping up as much as possible of status quo.

(Sorry about that :( )

We have seen some of the correspondants between Larun and Tovey about edits, it seemed to be a tug war over even the littlest adjustments in wording.

We know Brurbergs thoughts on ME from the Mental Elf. (Suspect Larun and Flottorp was involved in writing it?) And that unprofessional paper on diagnistic criteria, by Larun, Brurberg, Flottorp. Also there's been an norwegian article (in a ladies magazine, paper only) with Larun explaining the benefits of exercise for ME patients. They really believe this stuff.

We know Flottorp (the boss of Larun, Brurberg?) have re-tweeted several Live Landmark and Recovery Norge posts on twitter. Including that terrible norwegian 4-day treatment study. :-/

And we know even the administration is probably involved, as the acting CEO, Ottesen, made a public statement in Forskning.no when there was news about Cochrane wanting to pull the review. This is from november 2018:

In the audit, the researchers have reviewed all the inputs that have come and, among other things, implemented proposed new calculation methods. This has led to some changes in how uncertainty and findings are described.

"But the main message is that graded exercise can help alleviate some symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome, especially fatigue," writes Ottersen to Cochrane.

Furthermore, he writes that some new studies have been published that address graded training as treatment. But that does not challenge the conclusion in Larun's review study.

- It is therefore difficult to see how medical environments or patients should benefit from the current study being drawn.
Click to expand...


https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https://forskning.no/me/vil-trekke-tilbake-me--forskning-etter-kritikk/1256374
 
Last edited:
Addition - the one little thing that gives me a tiny bit of hope, is the mere fact that this process actually have taken this long.

The chief editor have obviously not just given in to the review team/Norwegian institute of public health (again - sorry about that :( ). If so, the review would have been updated already (even though he did back-track on pulling it, as he should have done...... )

But I'm super-nervouse, whatever the update will be, it will get public attention in Norway, and have impact, one way or the other... :nailbiting:
 
inox said:
Addition - the one little thing that gives me a tiny bit of hope, is the mere fact that this process actually have taken this long.

The chief editor have obviously not just given in to the review team/Norwegian institute of public health (again - sorry about that :( ). If so, the review would have been updated already (even though he did back-track on pulling it, as he should have done...... )

But I'm super-nervouse, whatever the update will be, it will get public attention in Norway, and have impact, one way or the other... :nailbiting:
Click to expand...

Of there was a bit of a stand-off, and then they gave in to Larun.
 
inox said:
Who are 'they'?

The Cochrane central editors, or the norwegian-based review team?

I don't think we can make any assumptions about what the new Cochrane editor's take on this is yet, even if I don't have my hopes up for a good outcome...

I strongly suspect that what is happening behind the sceenes up until now, is the Norwegian Institute of public Health leaning in with all their weight in keeping up as much as possible of status quo.

(Sorry about that :( )

We have seen some of the correspondants between Larun and Tovey about edits, it seemed to be a tug war over even the littlest adjustments in wording.

We know Brurbergs thoughts on ME from the Mental Elf. (Suspect Larun and Flottorp was involved in writing it?) And that unprofessional paper on diagnistic criteria, by Larun, Brurberg, Flottorp. Also there's been an norwegian article (in a ladies magazine, paper only) with Larun explaining the benefits of exercise for ME patients. They really believe this stuff.

We know Flottorp (the boss of Larun, Brurberg?) have re-tweeted several Live Landmark and Recovery Norge posts on twitter. Including that terrible norwegian 4-day treatment study. :-/

And we know even the administration is probably involved, as the acting CEO, Ottesen, made a public statement in Forskning.no when there was news about Cochrane wanting to pull the review. This is from november 2018:




https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https://forskning.no/me/vil-trekke-tilbake-me--forskning-etter-kritikk/1256374
Click to expand...
I think you are adding a lot of useful background information for the forum. Thank you.

Maybe the fact that the science director at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has co authored this article in The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association with (amongst other) a Lightning Process coach might be of interest as well.
Chronic fatigue syndrome and experience with the Lightning Process (2016)
 
inox said:
We know Flottorp (the boss of Larun, Brurberg?) have re-tweeted several Live Landmark and Recovery Norge posts on twitter. Including that terrible norwegian 4-day treatment study. :-/
Click to expand...
Kalliope said:
Maybe the fact that the science director at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has co authored this article in The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association with (amongst other) a Lightning Process coach might be of interest as well.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand this. I would suspect that it's obvious that the Lightning Process is bogus and that anyone involved discredits him/herself.

Is there a skeptic community (not involved with ME/CFS) you can speak to about this? You could say that patients are being misled with this bogus, secretive and expensive treatment and that the science director at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health is contributing to this by coauthoring articles about it or Flottorp by retweeting recovery stories of LP. Is that an option?
 
Michiel Tack said:
I don't quite understand this. I would suspect that it's obvious that the Lightning Process is bogus and that anyone involved discredits him/herself.

Is there a skeptic community (not involved with ME/CFS) you can speak to about this? You could say that patients are being misled with this bogus, secretive and expensive treatment and that the science director at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health is contributing to this by coauthoring articles about it or Flottorp by retweeting recovery stories of LP. Is that an option?
Click to expand...
Yes there is a sceptic community, and ME patients have tried to alert them numerous times, but they don't seem interested. I believe it's unfathomable for them that the leader for the National Competence Service of ME/CFS, researchers as Wyller et al, politicians, institutions as The Norwegian Institute of Public Health etc are so enthusiastic of Lightning Process if there's not anything to it.

Phil Parker is easy to spot as a charlatan, the coaches over here are better at presenting themselves in a more serious way and on top of that we are quite gullible in general here. Alternative treatments are very popular and the skeptic community seems more interested in making fun of animal interpreters and such than helping protecting patients against undocumented treatments, doing something that matters.

Also, they have their own gurus, as prof. Kristian Gundersen, a biologist who defends the PACE trial and criticise ME patients for trying to have a say in academic debates. It's a mess, and requires that someone actually takes the time and effort required to get an overview, and nobody seems to be willing to do that amount of work.
 
Michiel Tack said:
I don't quite understand this. I would suspect that it's obvious that the Lightning Process is bogus and that anyone involved discredits him/herself.
Click to expand...

One of the points I made in my testimony to NICE is that in this area there seems to be no dividing line between the apparently respectable and the obviously bogus. Nobody is interested in thinking about that in this 'liaison psychiatry' community.

It seems that pointing out that things are wrong has no traction any more in public discourse - whether politics or medicine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom