Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

Indeed. And if it is firmly rejected, despite the fact that White et al waited to publish their article until Nice might be assumed to have its focus elsewhere because it's "done" ME, it's a useful rap on the knuckles.

 

Yeah, and we've seen it in action with the exercise review. Well, not "seen" so much as witnessed its complete absence.

But apparently they claim it exists. Somewhere. On the 3rd moon of Saturn, perhaps.

 

Jonathan - "My information is that Peter Barry and co are likely to have taken this seriously and probably produced a slightly lengthier and watertight version of what we had at Round Table."
Looking at the "bigger picture", i.e. beyond the NICE ME/CFS Guideline, I think there is a case for Peter Barry to rebut White et al. Basically Peter Barry, & Ilora Finlay, produced an evidence based guideline - as per NICE's remit. If there is evidence that they e.g. should have give greater weight to then that needs to be considered; however, there was no objective evidence that these interventions work - what NICE concluded. If we're at the stage where an evidence based review can be overruled based on pressure from the medical established, then basically that needs to be publicly stated in NICEs charter.
Ironically there was evidence that the previous NICE ME/CFS Guideline was flawed. I.e. the recommendations were based on poor quality evidence and that fact was not reflected in the report. Some of the experts (from Sheffield University?), employed by NICE to review the evidence, had previously published a review indicating the low quality of the evidence - yet the report they prepared for NICE didn't reflect those concerns. If White et al had something like that, then I've no doubt that Peter Barry, & Ilora Finlay, would agree that the Guideline should be reviewed/revised - they don't!

Jonathan - "It is all done and dusted as far as I can see." Yip to challenge an evidence based report you'd need to have a basis to challenge the evidence - they don't. This all seems like a long whinge --- but potentially there could benefits both for NICE & the wider community -- like long covid, ---.

 

I'm sure anyone would get annoyed if they had to argue the same point over and over again to people with their fingers in their ears.

 

If so, I'd certainly credit you!!

 

Will it actually be peer-reviewed? It seems like the party being attacked should have some freedom in responding without having to respond to lots of snarky, nitpicky anonymous comments from who knows who?

 

Exactly. NICE has the right to defend itself however it sees fit, given the attack.

 

They are impervious to humiliation and embarassment, however, given their arrogance and incomprehensible certainty about their own righteousness.

 

Especially if it gets covered by news organizations to the same extent the JNNP screed was.

 

This would be true in theory. However, we are dealing with JNNP, which has Alan Carson and Jon Stone as leading editorial players. They are not known for being honest brokers.

 

Don't think they can be shut up. But it would be great if they spout their bullshit but no one is paying attention anymore.

 

I really wondered about that.

 

That may well true.However, to continue the metaphors, a range of people here have nailed their colours to a particular mast when they need not have. And in doing so they are tarring themselves with one brush. So for those who find Peter Barry's response convincing they have labelled themselves as numbskulls.