The Medical Care Blog: The myth of female hysteria and health disparities among women

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
Women with lupus, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and even Parkinson’s disease still typically face long periods of misdiagnosis, undertreatment, and referral delays before they receive appropriate care. In one American emergency department, women were more likely to present with abdominal pain, but less likely to receive analgesics and waited longer to get them when they were prescribed. Women in the US with cardiac diseases are also less likely to receive appropriate treatment than men. Women and girls are only now starting to get appropriate diagnoses and treatment for autism because their symptoms are usually “atypical” – meaning, different from boys’ and men’s symptoms. The fact that women and girls were excluded from most clinical trials before 1990 probably contributes to many of the persistent health disparities we still see today.
Click to expand...
http://www.themedicalcareblog.com/female-hysteria-myth-disparities/

Also appeared originally here. Click on title to access.
 
"
We have been attacked by gremlins
A 1994 study by Pawlikowska, Trudie Chalder and Simon Wessely, looking at general fatigue and psychological distress, found that women are more likely to complain of fatigue; and that the commonest reasons for fatigue were work, family, and lifestyle ('psychosocial', 40% of patients). Their conclusion was that fatigue is closely associated with 'psychological morbidity'.[3]
  • A 2000 response by Martin Bland[1], a professor of mathematical statistics, questioned the seemingly impossible statistical results of that study, and some other statistical errors.[4].
  • A response from Chalder and Wessely admitted the error and said:
'Somewhere between the analysis and the printed copy we have been attacked by gremlins. Sadly, the passage of time, theft of a computer containing the original draft, and the fact that none of us can find the proofs anymore, mean that we have no idea when this happened.'[5]
  • David Marchevsky, a consultant psychiatrist, responded on the dangers of 'unsupported conclusions derived from faulty analyses', especially when 'this doctor was an important key figure in a Cochrane collaboration group.'[6]
  • Jon Håvard Loge wrote that he had a copy of the original 1993 manuscript submitted for review, which did not include the errors, and he suggested that 'The gremlins seem to have attacked somewhere in the production line because the referees at the BMJ reviewed a manuscript with correct means.'[7]
"Missing proofs, theft of a computer and passage of time might seem like poor excuses and indicate unreliable researchers."
  • Simon Wessely replied, reaffirming that the BMJ was attacked by gremlins.[8]
  • Anthony Pelosi, who reviewed the original manuscript, responded that he had told the authors of a number of statistical errors, and suggestions to fix them.[9]
  • Richard Smith, the editor of the BMJ, replied that the errors were "ultimately unimportant", and suggested a dinner be held.[10]"
http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model#We_have_been_attacked_by_gremlins
 
Its Autism Awareness week.
Saw this on the TV last night;
"
Autism in girls leaves families waiting years for help

Not so long ago it was thought that only boys had autism. But there is growing evidence that autism among girls is a hidden problem that we just don't see or understand,

Because the condition looks different in young women and girls, some families wait many years for a diagnosis and even longer to get proper help."

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2018-03-27/autism-in-girls-leaves-families-waiting-years-for-help/
 
Sly Saint said:
Somewhere between the analysis and the printed copy we have been attacked by gremlins.
Click to expand...
Such things were really said! And:
Fourth, we are sure that our sleepless nights over this one will be cured by a receipt of a bottle of wine from the BMJ.
Click to expand...
I think this is supposed to be funny. And I could laugh indeed if it wasn't for this statement:

Anyway, as is clear from the correspondence, there is no doubt that the analyses and conclusions of our paper written all those years ago remain valid, and are
certainly not faulty.
Click to expand...
This, without any doubt, reveals a highly questionable character unfit for scientific work.
(The quotes are from reference [8].)

That's just so unbelievable.

Edit: Read also reference 5, and I am left flabbergasted...Really...don't know what to say. I thought the gremlins passage was a joke...Proof of an all embracing incompetence of PACE authors (at least when it comes to statistics...)
 
Last edited:
Sly Saint said:
"
We have been attacked by gremlins
A 1994 study by Pawlikowska, Trudie Chalder and Simon Wessely, looking at general fatigue and psychological distress, found that women are more likely to complain of fatigue; and that the commonest reasons for fatigue were work, family, and lifestyle ('psychosocial', 40% of patients). Their conclusion was that fatigue is closely associated with 'psychological morbidity'.[3]
  • A 2000 response by Martin Bland[1], a professor of mathematical statistics, questioned the seemingly impossible statistical results of that study, and some other statistical errors.[4].
  • A response from Chalder and Wessely admitted the error and said:
'Somewhere between the analysis and the printed copy we have been attacked by gremlins. Sadly, the passage of time, theft of a computer containing the original draft, and the fact that none of us can find the proofs anymore, mean that we have no idea when this happened.'[5]
  • David Marchevsky, a consultant psychiatrist, responded on the dangers of 'unsupported conclusions derived from faulty analyses', especially when 'this doctor was an important key figure in a Cochrane collaboration group.'[6]
  • Jon Håvard Loge wrote that he had a copy of the original 1993 manuscript submitted for review, which did not include the errors, and he suggested that 'The gremlins seem to have attacked somewhere in the production line because the referees at the BMJ reviewed a manuscript with correct means.'[7]
"Missing proofs, theft of a computer and passage of time might seem like poor excuses and indicate unreliable researchers."
  • Simon Wessely replied, reaffirming that the BMJ was attacked by gremlins.[8]
  • Anthony Pelosi, who reviewed the original manuscript, responded that he had told the authors of a number of statistical errors, and suggestions to fix them.[9]
  • Richard Smith, the editor of the BMJ, replied that the errors were "ultimately unimportant", and suggested a dinner be held.[10]"
http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model#We_have_been_attacked_by_gremlins
Click to expand...
Sort it all out over dinner old chap - how much more establishment than that can you get
 
Maybe we need a chronological missing data papers and computers paper publish to bring attention to the tactics of this group.
“ Satatistical analysis of things gone wrong, computer missing, data wrong.... for Wesley Et al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom