David Tuller: Trial By Error: BMJ Still "Looking Into" Lightning Process Paper

But this is Crawley........anything is possible (it would seem).

 

Its a stall tactic, they hope that a small gesture will make the problem go away by placating critics and hopefully we forget about the issue before the end of time.

 

"we have received clarifications from the authors" - hmmm, that will be a first.

 

http://www.ipa2016.com/plenarysessions

28th International Conference of Pediatrics, Vancouver, Canada.

heh.

 

Possible further reading

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/935804

The COPE Report 1999 - Guidelines on Good Publication Practice

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/1039851

Clinical Trial Registration: Looking Back and Moving Ahead
Annals of Internal Medicine 2007 August 21; 147(4): 275-277

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/1040153

Uniform Format for Disclosure of Competing Interests in ICMJE Journals
Annals of Internal Medicine 2010 January 19; 152(2): 125-126

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/938732

Global Information Flow
Lancet 2000 September 30; 356(9236): 1129-1130

https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19825973

Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Nov 5;361(19):1896-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe0909052. Epub 2009 Oct 13.

http://student.bmj.com/student/view-article.html?id=sbmj.i3614

My biggest career failure

https://www.symptoma.com/en/research/profile/f_godlee

Co-Author network - Richard Horton #22 Co-publications

 

Well thank goodness the job landed in the safe hands of Richard Horton then, otherwise who knows how the Lancet might have disgraced itself.

 

A thought experiment, would they publish a paper that says you can treat Cancer or Alzheimers with LP?
Why or why not?

 

Got a link that he is treating Alzheimers with CBT?
If he is claiming its a cure i would call attention to it, divide and conquer.

 

Sounds somewhat ok on the surface. But whats beneath and the actual goings on are far more important.

Perhaps someone should point out very publicly that he has a history of doctoring results so he can't be trusted to be honest
Maybe the funders of the study should be made aware of this and if he lies again it may cost more money then it saves...?

 

At this point I'm not sure of the answer. UK medicine is entering a bizarre reversal into pseudoscience for the sake of cutting costs everywhere.

 

I noticed but we can use that against them and for science, lies increase costs

I do suspect they would be more careful when dealing with mainstream diseases because they can get away more easily with kicking a maligned disease rather then a well known one. If they tried to claim they could cure heart disease with CBT and fabricated the evidence they would lose credibility and their medical licenses very quickly
If they claim instead that they can treat the depression "caused" by heart disease, a wishy washy way of skirting the lies.