1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 12th October 2020 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Tuller & Racaniello writing again Trish Groves/BMJ: Yet Another Go-Round with BMJ Open

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Esther12, Mar 27, 2018.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,748
    Likes Received:
    30,605
    Atle, mango, Indigophoton and 15 others like this.
  2. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    18,117
    I' m crap at Twitter. There are a number of tweets re BMJ exposure of dodgy paper on stents ( switching end points) . I follow aseem malhotra who has picked up on this. It might be useful to link to the thread to highlight this and the dodgy stats underpinning this illness paradigm for those that can use it effectively?
    Double standard effectively illustrated

     
  3. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,292
    Likes Received:
    20,904
    Location:
    UK
    @dave30th - I wonder if it's worth contacting Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ, to try to get an idea of what's what. He wrote a blog post pushing for release of the PACE trial data in the run-up to the tribunal.
     
  4. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,190
    Likes Received:
    11,796
    We certainly need to find some way to answer the question is the BMJ Open's editorial and peer review system incompetent and allowing through lots of articles with procedural and methodological flaws or is it that it is corrupt specifically allowing the BPS brigade to publish badly administered and flawed studies and protecting them from any fall out?

    I am assuming it is primarily incompetence and laziness, taking at face value the claims of high profile academics, without following due process and then colluding the hide both the researchers' and the journal's mistakes to save face. Though [deleted extra 'though'] given it is happening regularly with BPSer articles perhaps this is naive.
     
  5. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,148
    Likes Received:
    42,750
    Location:
    UK
    "The organisers of a major clinical trial have been accused of moving the goalposts by quietly changing the study’s primary endpoints shortly before reporting its results."

    sounds familiar
     
  6. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    14,564
    Peter, I don't know. You only have to read the school absence paper to see it's not service evaluation. In the open peer review, a BPS colleague raised serious questions about the lack of ethical review. Crawley gave absurd non-answers, which I pointed out in my first post about the issue. The journal just let her get away with it. Now the current cover-up is obviously completely deliberate.
     
    JaimeS, mango, Esther12 and 11 others like this.
  7. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,095
    Likes Received:
    40,014
    Which probably means directly trying to get the perpetrators to come clean is a not going to happen, without other pressures coming to bear. The work so far is an excellent clarification of what is wrong, and maybe the political angle is needed, underpinned by that information, to get any further? When you reach a stalemate from one direction, maybe encourage pressure to come from another direction?
     
  8. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    14,564
    I think now that the groundwork is there, other press coverage would help. Either by me or by others. I am trying to figure that one out now. Maximum public embarrassment is the only thing that will work.
     
    JaimeS, Barry, Daisybell and 14 others like this.

Share This Page