David Tuller: Trial By Error: Cochrane's Report on Courtney's Complaint

deleder2k said:
I'm not sure what "sources and methods" mean, but it is from a reliable source.
Click to expand...
I was assuming if the source was simple it would have been included in the article. It doesn't say. The only alternative I can think of is someone who wants to remain anonymous, temporarily or for the foreseeable future or unresolved proceedings that allowed to use this one piece.

A whistleblower would be nice. But as the update adds, public records are nice too.
 
Last edited:
fivetowns said:
Does anyone think it would be worth sending this new evidence with a request for a correction to Reuters and the Guardian?
Click to expand...
Yes on principle but probably not those outlets. They made the choice to act as PR representatives for the SMC. Ideally this should be in a more formal publication, though not necessarily a scientific journal.
 
rvallee said:
I was assuming if the source was simple it would have been included in the article. It doesn't say. The only alternative I can think of is someone who wants to remain anonymous, temporarily or for the foreseeable future or unresolved proceedings that allowed to use this one piece.

A whistleblower would be nice. But as the update adds, public records are nice too.
Click to expand...

A fellow PWME sent a FOI request for it. The Norwegian Public Institute of Health had no lawful way of not making it public even if they wanted. FOI requests are quite common in Norway. All correspondence to or from governmental agencies is to be listed. To, from, and the title is listed, and the one can send a FOI to get it. The site einnsyn.no don't keep the correspondence. They only list the from, to and the subject. They forward the FOI request to the agency that received or sent the document/case (Norwegian Public of Health in this instance). They granted access to the document, and sent it to a PWME who shared it anonymously to Tuller.

Everyone can send a FOI/ask for documents there. They can refuse a request for a number of reasons. They mainly include if a document is internal work at an governmental agency, or if a document is contains personal sensitive stuff. They may also erase/black out the sensitive stuff in some cases.

If someone heres tries to get a hold of a document and it gets rejected, an appeal can be made. I've been successful with appeals many times.
 
Sly Saint said:
see also
How to make sense of a Cochrane systematic review
https://breathe.ersjournals.com/content/10/2/134
Click to expand...
Rules are useless if they aren't even enforced, more so when arbitrary exemptions are made purely out of bias and prejudice.

I particularly love that both CBT and GET reviews fail on every single measure of bias, yet they are both marked as low possibility of bias. Makes a complete joke of their process.

Biases
SELECTION BIAS
Those who are less ill could get allocated to the preferred treatment if allocation is not concealed from both patient and investigators

PERFORMANCE BIAS
The participants could cooperate better in taking a new treatment

ASSESSMENT BIAS
Measurement may be influenced if the treatment group is known

ATTRITION BIAS
The patients who drop out of trials tend to be those who are doing badly, thus improving the average result in those who are left in that trial arm

REPORTING BIAS
Highly significant results are more likely to be fully reported in papers than those that are uninteresting because they are not significant (and may not provide enough information to be included in meta-analysis)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom