1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Concerns about Cochrane

Discussion in 'Other health news and research' started by Kalliope, Sep 14, 2018.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
  2. Caroline Struthers

    Caroline Struthers Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    821
    Location:
    Oxford UK
    yeah sorry. You're right. I spent a lot of time bugging her to look at it in late 2018/early 2019 and I also emailed her in 2016/7 ish?. I know I was not the only one over the years, but i was the most recent one - and I think almost certainly the one she found most annoying! And then she got invited to advise Cochrane on what to do about the review, and also to help them update their conflict of interest policy. She did declare that her PhD supervisor Paul Glaziou was an author on the withdrawn (individual patient data) protocol, but not that he is an acknowledged advisor on the published review, along with PACE PI Peter White. I am annoyed that she didn't use her considerable influence to get Cochrane to withdraw the review, and is giving them a pat on the back for publishing an an amendment which will not make any difference to patients. At least there is now a link from the review to the statement about the update - although no one will see it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
  3. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,675
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    He seems to ignore the fact that covid-19 is more infectuous than normal flu, as well as more deadly. That combination is a reason for concern even if there's also still a lot of uncertainty.
     
  5. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    Yes, this tweet is a problem scientifically and morally.
     
  6. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,819
    Location:
    Australia
    Covid-19 is the illness, not the virus, which is SARS-CoV-2.

    This current strain is analogous to certain historical epidemic flu strains, only we don't have a vaccine, hence the panic. Several betacoronaviruses have been circulating in human populations for years and alphacoronaviruses are common.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_OC43
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_HKU1

    It is still hard to compare it to flu directly given that it has not circulating as widely as flu does (yet!?!), except in one city and China historically, did not report deaths in of people who had comorbidities as 'flu'. (look up why Chinese Flu death statistics are so low!)
     
    Invisible Woman and Sly Saint like this.
  7. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,675
  8. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,261
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2022
    Chezboo, Lisa108, Solstice and 9 others like this.
  9. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,633
  10. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,041
    Location:
    Australia
    And NICE want to form a close working partnership with this 'new improved' Cochrane?
     
  11. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    The description of Cochrane as prestigious seems entirely appropriate.

    It means "marked by illusion, conjuring and trickery", doesn't it?
     
  12. Art Vandelay

    Art Vandelay Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    584
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    After reading this, I now understand why Cochrane's handling of the ME/CFS exercise review has been a complete joke.
     
    Kirsten, MEMarge, rvallee and 6 others like this.
  13. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,855
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Only had a cursory look at this and it doesn't give a good impression about the Cochrane board members' mediation skills.

    Anyway, I had wondered before whether Gøtzsche got expelled from Cochrane because he a bit too enthusiastically praciticized their credo about having to fight against over-medicalization, the pharmaceutical industry and the like?

    Edited to add: Apologies if off-topic and badly worded -- just think we need to be cautious about the idea that every criticism of Cochrane, of PACE, of the BPS approach to illness etc. is justified, and even more cautious about potential allies. (I think Gøtzsche isn't a critic of PACE or the BPS approach, these were only meant as examples for criticism voiced by other potential allies.)

    (Edited again for clarity.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2021
    Peter Trewhitt, Sean and Skycloud like this.
  14. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,491
    Location:
    Belgium
    TiredSam, Mithriel, rvallee and 7 others like this.
  15. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2022
    Ash, Wyva, Simbindi and 8 others like this.
  16. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Ash, Simbindi, Michelle and 5 others like this.
  17. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,733
    Location:
    UK
    Ash, Simbindi and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  18. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,290
    Location:
    Canada
    What are the terms for being nominated? It would seem fairly reasonable to put forward the effort of people pushing back against the churn of low-quality BPS research. It's a joint effort, but obviously you can't reduce research waste better than simply not ever funding research that we know is not only useless but had a massively negative impact. Something like a combination of David Tuller, Keith Geraghty, Brian Hugues and a few others who have raised concerns about obviously useless research, exposing the deep rot at the core of evidence-based medicine.

    I would fully expect it not to win but something that will look bad in hindsight. It's impossible to do better at reducing research waste then ending an entire factory line of garbage-quality research that serves no purpose, can effectively be shown to have actually wasted trillions by blocking genuine research. Because more than anything it's the cheap formula that is at fault, so even by only counting direct research funding we are talking about billions in research that isn't just useless, it was 100% useless years before it was even conceived.

    It probably wouldn't be accepted because the criteria are too arbitrary. It basically only counts standard research, precisely the kind that is at fault here.
     
  19. Simbindi

    Simbindi Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,746
    Location:
    Somerset, England
    An example that could be used is the NICE ME/CFS evidence review!

    I think the criteria could be met...

     
    shak8, Amw66 and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  20. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    Oh yes. We'd have to win on this criterion.
     
    Simbindi and rvallee like this.

Share This Page