Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

Does anyone know who runs this, or who is likely to be involved with trying to stop Cochrane withdrawing the review?

 

I would think that they will still want the questions answered and we know they can't do that. An amended review which highlights the high risk of bias and how slim the evidence is would still be good for us.

If the reuters leak was designed to test the waters they will know now that we have professionals on our side and the usual narrative of this being great research that only antiscience patients would object to will not stand up.

 

Science journal to withdraw chronic fatigue review amid patient activist complaints


https://japantoday.com/category/fea...tigue-review-amid-patient-activist-complaints

 

I'd say it's likely an all-hands-on-deck situation. Everyone involved will do what they can behind the scenes.

The process is completely opaque at this point and that's worrying. It's politics vs. science and the determining factor will likely be in how many on the side of science are involved, if at all. If the conversation remains entirely private and within the psychosocial bubble they may win, but Cochrane has to consider the long-term reputational damage of caving to politics in defense of egregiously flawed research, especially after the ideologues have decided to directly attack Cochrane's reputation over it.

Quite a legacy to leave for those involved in the final decision, especially given the other turmoils.

 

It's ment to sound bad - it's a statement from a researcher getting her work scrutinised. But that's nothing more then we expexted going on?

Re-reading the piece I notice how very much biased in favour of the researcher it is, even if not so openly as the reuters story. 'A team of experienced researchers led by Larun' vs patients advocates etc

 

Yeah, but on the other hand - from the Goetze saga we know that Cochrane doesn't shy away from using lawyers themselfs.

And Cochrane, especsially at this point in time, would be severly damaged as the brand they are trying to market - if that where to happen and it came out that they caved in under threats of legal action in spite of the science. I don't think they could survive such a blow?

 

Yes. If Cochrane showed that they could in fact be bullied into submission by vociferous and duplicitous researchers and reviewers, they might get the BSP crowd off their backs, but they would never be able to hold their heads up in front of real scientists ever again ... or in front of the mirror for that matter. It would be an incredibly shameful thing to do, and go against the very principles they claim to stand for.

 

Blakemore said this was a sign of Cochrane's editors sidelining evidence under pressure from CFS/ME campaigners who insist their illness is a physical disease and not a psychological disorder

That's an interesting quote from Blakemore in the JapanToday article. Blakemore would surely not say the illness is a psychological disorder unless he had been given to believe that to be the case. Interesting considering how vociferously some have claimed not to believe in a purely psychological explanation.

EDIT italicisation of quote

 

It totally depends how big the hitters are that get pulled in for the BPS crowd, that we already know has suited government policy. Also how many favours they think they can chuck Cochranes way. What kind of deals they can do. We don't even know that stuff wont go on behind the scenes involving non disclose agreements etc or even "here is an offer you cant refuse".

The BPS crowd now have NOTHING to lose and will have no choice now but to consider the worst possible tricks available to people who have been propped up by enormous Insurance companies and government department stupidity incompetence and or negligence and not also excluding potentially deliberate obfuscation.

Its naive to think the revolving door of government and the influential establishment doesn't affect outcomes.

 

Hmm. So Cochrane told the authors that they wanted to temporaily withdraw the review until the issues were addressed. But Larun refused to go along with the withdrawal and instead went to the media and publicly criticised Cochrane. And now Cochrane have blinked and decided not to go ahead with the withdrawal, and are allowing the review to stand until the resubmission takes place.

I hope I'm wrong about this but Cochrane's response does not exactly fill me with confidence that they're willing to stand firm.

 

Who is meant to be in charge of the process, Cochrane or the authors?

 

Perhaps this reads more that, currently the review does not stand, as it is subject to a complaint and that the authors now have to do a submission to that complaint in the form of a new review that will ONLY be published if Cochrane decide it answers the critiques adequately.

Very hard to guess whats going on.

 

I guess this is the significant bit: "A decision on the status of this review will be made once this resubmission has been through editorial process, which we anticipate will be towards the end of November 2018".

 

Yes so it currently doesn't stand I guess. Didn't Larun have 18 months to come up with answers to the critiques before all of this. Will be fascinating to see what they produce in few weeks.

 

The mere fact it's still up says it stands, it has not been withdrawn until answers are provided. It has been left up.

To continue to be cited in support of other BS.

Disappointing.

 

Small post on Brian Hughes blog
https://notthesciencebit.net/2018/1...versial-review-of-exercise-therapy-in-me-cfs/

 

No, the other way around, I'm afraid It stil stands, that's just information about the process up to making a descision.

This is how it would have been marked if it were actually withdrawn (the chinese herbs for ME review):
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cds...ghtAbstract=chronic&highlightAbstract=fatigue