Caroline Struthers' correspondence and blog on the Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome, 2017 and 2019, Larun et al.

She was also one of the founding members of Cochrane, I think? And yes, it would be very good

 

Indeed. Her bio on PLOS reads:

This is nice.

 

Have only read once David Tovey's response to Caroline Struthers' complaint about the Cochrane Exercise Review, so far, and find it very confusing if not contradictory need to read it again when my brain is functioning better.

My feeling is that he is trying to keep everyone happy and defend everyone's reputation, which is fundamentally impossible. One wonders if some one else has told him he has to take the complaints seriously, but that he has failed to understand the nature of the complaints.

I had understood from their previous announcement on the 30th of November that Cochrane had decided that the current review was no longer appropriate and would ultimately completely remove or replace it, whereas Tovey now seems to be saying that the current authors may still be allowed to further rewrite it.

Does Caroline Struthers' blog post containing Tovey's response on behalf of Cochrane warrant a new thread of its own? https://healthycontrolblog.wordpres...iew-of-exercise-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/

 

I think Tovey is just saying, "everyone does that shit now so its normal so nothing to see here".

 

Ye this is whats called just shutting up shop. Cant pass the buck, cant admit any personal liability, play the legal advice route, protect your own interests and if the buck isn't passed onto someone else be ready to team up and blow with the wind with anyone who will protect their own interests and yours.

If doing the right thing could have any comebacks on yourself be prepared to shit on the weakest and go into denial mode.

 

She does seem to have been defending Cochrane a lot recently. I can't claim to have a good understanding of all the heated politics around Cochrane at the moment, but I do wonder if she might want to avoid being as critical of Cochrane's handling of this case as I think people should be. Maybe it's unfair of me to think that would be an issue, but I increasingly get a sense that researchers' judgements on academic disputes can be heavily influenced by personal connections/alliances/etc.

edit: Having said that, I think that a lot of what I've read from her on the issue seemed reasonable. It just seems impossible for us outsiders to know what's going on. This has engendered a bit of a 'trust no-one' attitude in me.

 

Nope, that's about right.

 

I am beginning to think that the qualification which would be of most use to scientists would be an A level in English literature, or equivalent.

The role of the "unreliable narrator" seems almost fundamental to all the issues which we consider.

 

To use the argument it is simply a matter of opinion is appalling.

If Cochrane wants to be taken seriously, they should be standing for the highest levels of scientific methodology.

How independent were the methodologists and were they perhaps psychiatric/psychological methodologists for whom such methodological sleight of hand is the norm, is acceptable, is the basis of their careers?

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1082603808608391168

 

My favourite sentence in Caroline’s favourite comment on her blog
https://healthycontrolblog.wordpres...c-fatigue-syndrome/comment-page-1/#comment-27


“ I’m really happy psychologists do not construct bridges”.

 

Or design cars, or aircraft, or power tools, or anything ... oh dammit, they seem to think they can design trials

 

I am struggling to understand now why Tovey has gone through this whole process with Larun and rejected her resubmisssions following complaints and critiques.

From this recent exchange he seems to be rather confused about why he has taken the current actions.

Anyone?

 

Two questions arise from the blog. Is the term "fiddling with ones instrument" a standard euphemistic medical term of abuse? And are psychological researchers prone to this?

 

This sentiment is already widespread. The problem is that ME lives on the medical blacklist and exceptions are carved out to justify not applying those universal standards. This kind of research would never be considered credible in diseases that aren't discriminated. There are good reasons for the double-blinded placebo-controlled standard. Everyone in medicine understands the need for it, way too many mistakes were made in the past. They just don't think it applies here because they see it as a behavioral problem and thus not their problem.

The problem isn't an understanding of what good practices are, it's to break the disbelief that makes medical professionals think it doesn't apply here. Our situation is comparable to being declared non-citizens and being shut out of legal protections are a result. Fundamental rights and protections do not apply to non-citizens/patients and the normal concerns over ethics and professionalism don't apply because of those exceptions.

This is what's behind ME being in the common mental disorders group. Tovey's statement that this shouldn't be interpreted to imply that they consider ME to be a mental disorder is totally absurd. Of course they do. That's literally the point and Tovey understands that. From his responses, it's clear that politics and ideology are the only factor at play here and the science is irrelevant to their decision-making process because the outcome has been predetermined.