Concerns about Cochrane

http://mentalfloss.com/article/94046/why-there-huge-cotton-ball-my-aspirin-bottle

 

It says:
Bayer actually started the ritual in the early 20th century in order to keep their pills in place. Powder pills would often break from moving around in the bottle and people weren't getting their proper dosage because they would try to piece them together.

Medicine has come a long way in the past 100 years and most pills are coated, thus removing the need for the cotton.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Bayer stopped the practice in 1999, but because people are used to seeing the little cotton balls in their pills, they expect it -- some companies have kept the practice in place.

 

I've never bought into the whole stops the tablets moving around and breaking thing - firstly, because it doesn't, and secondly, if that's why they put it in why is it often found in bottles full of gelatine capsules, which won;t break.

I'm afraid the only reasonable explanation is because they think the tablets may be deemed illegal by someone, so put the wadding in to reduce the rattle, and hope that whomever is shaking the bottle then assumes there are no illegal tablets inside.

 

It's actually to make theft easier so that Bayer gets more orders from companies whose employees nick stuff.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1045887452139999232

 

Dos anyone have any ideas of whether we should by trying to make use of this drama to push for changes at Cochrane/or greater awareness of the problems with the CFS reviews?

I'm naturally cautious about doing anything that could back-fire, and still don't really know where I stand on the controversy around Gøtzsche (I think that he's raising some justified concerns about Cochrane, but is far from the ideal figurehead), but this feel like something that will prompt people to more readily question Cochrane, and that's something we should be using to encourage greater discussion of our concerns.

 

Was Nordic Cochrane involved in the review of exercise therapy for CFS?

Because anti-pharma bias may very easily translate into pro-exercise/psychotherapy bias.

 

It seems not. https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...questing-the-data-set-from-a-cochrane-review/ gives some idea.

Larun is at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

 

Larun is at the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, which quite recently became part of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (it wasn't when the Cochrane review was written).
Cochrane Norway is based at the Norwegian Centre for the Health Services - so there is a connection, but I don't know more details about this.

In November, the Norwegian ME Association will organise research days about ME together with the national competence service for CFS/ME (which there is currently a petition against among patients) and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (which the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services and thus Cochrane Norway is part of). There will be an event open for a general audience as part of these research days. The Norwegian ME Association shared yesterday the news that @dave30th will be coming.

(I will add the research day and the open event to the calendar once there is more info about programme, tickets etc.)

 

Yes, I'm psyched. I've been to Bergen but not Oslo. It will be dark! But I lived in St. Petersburg for a year so got used to dark winter days.

 

I was so happy when I learned you are coming to Oslo. Will try to be there.

It will be cold and dark, but I hope how highly appreciated you are among ME patients in Norway and how very welcome you will be will compensate a bit

 

I'll save up spoons and hopefully I'll see you there, @dave30th I think it is on the 27th? Not sure.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1046115293221847043

https://twitter.com/user/status/1046116095529275394

 

No, not bad for science. Good that we all know what has been going on. Real science can cope with that. Bad science might be worried.

 

Finally an article about this from Norway. This from the editor of the Journal for the Norwegian Medical Association. This journal quite often provide translations in English of articles, so no google translations this time!

Are Brean: Sannhet og konsensus
English: Truth and consensus

The scientific method’s primary hallmark is still the principle of constantly and critically challenging accepted truths – and rejecting them when they are no longer valid. This requires that truth is more important than consensus. Let us hope that this is not what has failed in the recent events at Cochrane.

 

This is not how the scientific approach seems to actually work in reality though!

 

Nothing new here, but I'm quit happy with this beein brought up by the editor himself, in the journal for medical professionals. Included an discussion about different thngs that can bias meta-reviews. He really opened up the door for us now - to start pointing out the problems with the cochrane reviews on pace/ME.

 

'Cochrane: Collaboration or Cult?

https://davidhealy.org/cochrane-collaboration-or-cult/
The Cult have even put SMC (the Science Media Centre), who co-ordinated the launch of the Cult Review of the HPV vaccine, in an awkward spot. Which side do SMC take now, when the BMJ are coming out in favour of Goetzsche and Jefferson? This will be worth watching.'

In the context of the NICE review, this is worth tracking.

 

For anyone still trying to follow this, another update from yesterday:

https://community.cochrane.org/news...rane-iberoamerican-networks-statement-members

 

Interesting that people are still trying to pick up the pieces.