Search results

Just to add a wider issue that this and other events have raised. The MEA need to, with urgency, change their policy, personnel and practices for dealing with compliants, both internal and external. All we've been told, as far as I know, is in Neil Riley's flippant and disrespectful article in...

I have not attempted to keep up with this investigation into the MEA's actions. However, it is clear to me that it is now past the stage where assurances from the MEA trustees that they did nothing wrong are sufficient. They need to show, with a clearly published document trail including dates...

Thanks for raising that issue of being out of date, @SlySaint. I agree it's an issue to be covered in tackling what to do next, including possibliities of lodging a complaint to Cochrane, and or a Comment to Cochrane and possible complaints to funders and the Charity Commission. It could also be...

I don't think we go into that amount of detail about the content of the review.

FOI asking for numbers seems a good idea. I would like to see it also categorised by whether the comments came from current patients, recovered patients, carers, clinicians or others.

MEA and AfME employ secretarial and other staff who I assume would perform this role.

I wondered that too. Presumably if this was work contracted out by the MEA there should be publicly available evidence of an advertisement specifying what work is required, with details of an application process. If the contract was awarded to a trustee, there should be some sort of...

Note that the 2019 version now has an added notice at the top saying: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8/full Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome Lillebeth Larun Kjetil G Brurberg Jan Odgaard-Jensen Jonathan R Price Authors' declarations of...

Is this research misconduct that should be reported to COPE?

@Jonathan Edwards and @Caroline Struthers, is it normal practice for journals to publish a review article that is exactly the same as one they published 5 years ago as if it were a new review? Is there some sort of publishing ethics body to prevent this?

I think you could submit it to Cochrane complaints.

It's a disgraceful con trick. Also under discussion on the petition thread.

I've posted this on Hilda's talkpage:

Hilda has provided on her talkpage a link to the archived version of the pages that had been taken down as live pages with all her official updates...

That's a disgraceful con trick. So we need to submit new 'comments' to the so called 2024 review. Unbelievable. I had no idea professional people could stoop so low.

I think it would have been better to separate out the responses from the different groups, though of course even in the 'patient' group there are 'recovered patients' who we could name who are ardent promoters of BPS.

The sticky fingers of the BPS and mind-body people are all over this document. I'm horrified.

I started reading and am horrified at the misinformation included, for example:

Hilda has responded on her talkpage to my latest post there. She reveals that: "The protocol hadn’t been sent to the IAG yet. (I haven’t seen it either.)" To me that shows just how badly Cochrane have failed again. The review writing group submitted their draft protocol to Cochrane in February...

I tend to believe that there was quite a lot of activity for 3 brief periods. First Hilda took over a year from early 2020 to mid 2021 to appoint the IAG and for the review writing group to be appointed. Then in mid 2021 the IAG collated all the criticisms of past and current Cochrane exercise...