Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Indigophoton, Aug 13, 2018.
The Lancet's response might well be interpreted as, "well, what are you going to do about it then?"
this song just popped into my head:
Thanks for continuing to try, @dave30th. The Lancet has behaved shamefully.
Is there any mileage in contacting its publisher (Elsevier?)? Is The Lancet a member of COPE?
I make that 114 experts, 10 MP's and 71 organisations.
Thanks for trying again @dave30th.
Terrific to see the Associated ME Society of New Zealand on the list now. And Mike Godwin (was he there on the last one? Sorry, I forget).
There's a terrific coverage of patient organisations. But it also shows up the big gaps internationally. Nothing from Asia, South America, Africa, Russia. Perhaps @Mike Harley will have to keep running once he has finished with Europe .
Yes, the publisher is Elsevier ...
And yes, part of COPE (as of 2008) ...
Takes you to ...
Excellent, thanks to Dave and everyone who signed.
Dave, is there any point in putting pressure on the MRC and DWP, Scottish government ie funders, . Research which they funded is causing harm, is scientifically invalid/fraudulent. Do they not have ethical/legal responsibility to patients word wide to see this paper is re-examined/pulled?
Yes, of course they do. And I plan to write an open letter to MRC folks. But these enablers have already made it clear they think PACE was fine and done according to the appropriate standards of the time. They're all just engaged in self-protection. I'm hoping that at some point the weight of sustained pressure will have an impact.
I don't know how convincing it will be as an argument seeing how humans are notoriously bad at anticipating future consequences, but those involved, especially at The Lancet, NICE, BMJ and Cochrane really need to think long and hard about what will happen once the house of cards they so "courageously" defend will crumble.
They will need to think about what it will mean for their reputation once the absurdity and weakness of what they are defending is exposed. I'm sure they understand that it is the case and that politics bind their hands, but this will not protect them all from having defended egregiously flawed research, whose numerous flaws were explicitly pointed out to them, and having buried serious long-term harm, for which testimony abounds.
To be fair, the autism vaccine debacle doesn't seem to have hurt the Lancet's reputation one bit so maybe they are correct in thinking they are immune from consequences, no matter how egregious and corrupt it all is. But not everyone will be protected. Some careers will definitely be ruined, and rightfully so. Many institutions will face enormous financial costs and penalties.
Every defender of the psychosocial ideology seems to bet on the fact that research will not prove them wrong any time soon. That is a very flawed assumption. Inevitably it will happen. Those involved need to understand that consequences are inevitable considering the volume of commentary this is recorded on a medium in which nothing can be erased. There will be lawsuits and many will be liable to professional misconduct and fraud charges.
Inevitably the questions will have to be asked: "what did they know and why did they do nothing?" The obvious answer is that they know plenty and are on record as choosing to do nothing for arbitrary, even bizarre, reasons. They understand that, they just don't think it will ever hurt their personal reputation and interests. This is another very flawed assumption.
So many peoples' hands are already dirty from defending PACE that it's difficult to imagine them taking a complaint seriously.
There's a terrifying lack of independent oversight in UK science.
Cope alumni... https://publicationethics.org/about/cope-alumni
Was just looking for that example of COPE being mislead by the BMJ re Crawley's 'service evaluation': https://publicationethics.org/case/service-evaluation-research-controversial-area-medicine
Found what looks like a page on Crawley's SMILE trial:
COPE's response includes this:
"The Forum suggested publishing an editorial note on the paper or, if the institution agrees to undertake an investigation, publishing an expression of concern. As there seems to be no institutional oversight, perhaps the editor should give the authors the benefit of the doubt. This could be an important educational opportunity, to educate the authors regarding trial registration; although now an international standard, many authors do not know about prospective registration. Hence a lengthy corrigendum and an editorial highlighting the issues would be appropriate."
An important educational opportunity? They really care about the harm junk science does to patients, don't they?
This is how Phil Parker described himself:
“Phil Parker is already known to many as an inspirational teacher, therapist, healer and author. His personal healing journey began when, whilst working with his patients as an osteopath. [Sentence glitch from the original.] He discovered that their bodies would suddenly tell him important bits of information about them and their past, which to his surprise turned out to be factually correct! He further developed this ability to step into other people’s bodies over the years to assist them in their healing with amazing results. After working as a healer for 20 years, Phil Parker has developed a powerful and magical program to help you unlock your natural healing abilities. If you feel drawn to these courses then you are probably ready to join.”
@dave30th are you aware of this?
How much would it cost to publish this in the the UK's most read newspaper?
Haha would love to! My wife and bank balance might not agree though ;-)
Just heard back from Retha at the ME/CFS Foundation SA (South Africa)who says they will be signing it also.
Separate names with a comma.