Petition: S4ME 2023 - Cochrane: Withdraw the harmful 2019 Exercise therapy for CFS review

It is not normal practice.
I may be wrong but it seems a flagrant misuse of editorial powers and the editor in chief should resign.
We were told that the old review could not be removed because of a rule newly created to make it impossible. Pretending that it is now a new publication without any peer review seems a farce.

It is worth remembering that there was a point in the process where reviews were gathered 'more widely' (beyond psychological medicine) to assess the Larun output as a result of concerns about objectivity. That now seems to belong to a different universe.
 
This is on top of the farce of the “living systematic review” which managed to do meta analyses of single studies to produce different results from the original studies (which were themselves flawed). I suspect some of the same people involved too.

PACE has been used to teach university students how not to conduct trials. The BPS enthusiasts are now giving us an object lesson in scientific slight of hand. They appear to have gone into full-on post-truth mode now, as though they don’t even care how blatant their dishonesty is. We can’t discuss politics on here but there are many parallels with what is happening in certain parts of the world.
 
MatthiasRiem said:
I just saw a new editorial note has been appended to the review (see https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub9/full), which, while transparent about "ceasing the production of a full update of this Cochrane review", now gives the Larun et al. 2019 review a publication date of 19 December 2024.

The version history (at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub9/information#versionTable) states: "2024 Dec 19 New citation required but conclusions have not changed".

This also means critical comments addressing Larun et al. 2019, including a new, recent one from just two days ago all carry a note stating "This comment relates to a previous version of this review"

So we will now see citations of Larun et al. 2024 spring up in the literature.
Click to expand...

I had previously commented that a 2019 review was becoming more irrelevant every day, that it could easily be superseded by a new, better review, Cochrane or not. Changing the publication date, the 'old wine in new bottles' trick is certainly a clever trick.

But, it is also a trick that it is easy for us to explain, and very easy for us to prove that it has been done. It is surely the latest twist in the tale that gets this story over the line as far as making it a scandal that is newsworthy beyond our community. If there is any justice in the world, if there are any people of integrity in Cochrane and the people who fund them, then surely this is a step too far. It certainly smacks of desperation, the people behind this could not face a careful unbiased analysis of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
I've changed the title of the petition to
Cochrane: Withdraw the harmful 2019/2024 Exercise therapy for CFS review
for now.

We probably need to add an update as an edit to the 'Why this petition matters', and we'll get another petition update out before Christmas.
 
Robert 1973 said:
PACE has been used to teach university students how not to conduct trials.
Click to expand...
'
Just to be clear on this, I only know of this at my own place, the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley. It has been used in epidemiology graduate seminars. Plus, Bruce Levin, a Columbia biostatistician, gave a talk there called "How NOT to Conduct a Clinical Trial." Robert's statement is definitely true but--as far as my personal knowledge goes--it only applies to Berkeley students. I am sometimes concerned this claim has morphed into a general statement as if it has happenned a lot and at many universities.
 
Just noting the timing of this announcement, days before Christmas. I doubt that was chance. It's like how governments drop bad news on a Friday, knowing that the journalists won't be working for two days, and hoping that by Monday everyone's attention will be on the next thing.
 
Hutan said:
Just noting the timing of this announcement, days before Christmas. I doubt that was chance. It's like how governments drop bad news on a Friday, knowing that the journalists won't be working for two days, and hoping that by Monday everyone's attention will be on the next thing.
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope you’re wrong. But a part of me knows you’re right.
 
Sasha said:
It's just amazing how there's no kind of not-marking-your-own-homework ethical enforcement authority to appeal to in this situation.
Click to expand...
It's kind of funny how "peer review" is held up as some sort of authority when it explicitly translates into "no oversight" and sometimes can be "my buddy down the hall".

When you've seen enough of this, "was it peer-reviewed?" is such an inane comment since it does not provide any actual quality control. This system has held up on the fiction of academics being better people than the average Joe, and in this case we have the double appeal to authority of "doctors wouldn't do something to harm their patients", when actually both propositions are complete fantasy.

It should be like that. Just like all police officers should be ethical people and judges should have, you know, good judgment, but in reality no system can ever work like that. And this remains true, academia functions like this, but it doesn't work. In truth, peer review has even less value than a "QC passed" sticker on a piece of technology. It may mean that this part works, according to the manufacturer, and that's all it really means.
 
dave30th said:
'
Just to be clear on this, I only know of this at my own place, the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley. It has been used in epidemiology graduate seminars. Plus, Bruce Levin, a Columbia biostatistician, gave a talk there called "How NOT to Conduct a Clinical Trial." Robert's statement is definitely true but--as far as my personal knowledge goes--it only applies to Berkeley students. I am sometimes concerned this claim has morphed into a general statement as if it has happenned a lot and at many universities.
Click to expand...
It's also not really convincing in itself, as the PACE trial is definitely taught at more universities as a great example of high quality evidence-based medicine.

For sure one side of this is correct and the other isn't, but that hardly matters. What matters is what people believe. Even in academia. Maybe especially in academia. So many beliefs.
 
Hutan said:
Just noting the timing of this announcement, days before Christmas. I doubt that was chance. It's like how governments drop bad news on a Friday, knowing that the journalists won't be working for two days, and hoping that by Monday everyone's attention will be on the next thing.
Click to expand...
isn't Wednesday the news day for getting things to the media too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom