Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

I think it was also a way for them to ensure that whatever happens now, their narrative is likely to be the one that gets reported. If Cochrane decides to go ahead with the withdrawal after reading Larun's revisions, the press coverage will probably read "Cochrane caves to patient protests" rather than "Cochrane scraps flawed review".

 

Hopefully, they'll realize that the best way to stand up for science against antiscience agitators is to go ahead and withdraw the review.

 

I am probably way behind everyone else on this, but it has been hard keeping up lately, and harder to understand what is going on.

It is not necessary to find any conflict between the "facts" as reported by Kelland and the addendum by Cochrane. Kelland states that the paper is to be withdrawn. Cochrane state that the paper will be withdrawn unless certain conditions are met. If those upon whom the conditions are placed have indicated to Kelland that they are unable or unwilling to comply with the conditions then Cochrane may not have changed position and the reporting is accurate but not complete.

But you probably already knew that.

 

This is the only thing that can preserve Cochrane's reputation long-term.

However this is all happening very short-term and in frantic cover your ass mode. They are basically sacrificing the organisation to preserve a lie that has been used to harm millions of people (and save billions, which is totally coincidental).

I'm sure they'll win a few battles until then but this very visible quadruple-checking and thumbs-upping of egregiously and obviously flawed science is the kind of thing that breaks an organisation whose value is trust and integrity.

Organisations preserve themselves above all. But here one organisation is being demolished to preserve bigger organisations for whom accountability will take the form of very expensive legal problems and a crisis of confidence in the institution of medicine.

Cover-ups can go a long way but reality always asserts itself in the long run. They're just hoping to be long gone when this blows up.

 

Maybe my remark here is off topic, and I've currently no power to read all of the rest of this thread before writing a comment, so please forgive me if I'm spoiling the thread

However, I do ponder how the term sickness behavior is used in English.
When I studied (a rather long time ago), most literature was in English and back then "sickness behavior" was believed to be caused by cytokines, was defined as a set of behaviors like lethargy, withdrawal from the herd, and diminished interest for food. It was thought to interact with psychological concepts such as for instance Locus of Control and more or less a "biologist" (i.e. a sociobiologist) alternative to the sociological concept of sick role, from long before cytokines were discovered. Since then I've seen several references to sickness behavior being caused/mediated also through the nervous system.

Now, it may seem as if the concepts have contaminated each other?

Edit:
An updated view on Sickness Behavior:
(I don't know how much it's become generally accepted.)



Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002276

 

"No one said patient activists" - apparently...

 

So he imputes to others the motivation that they have 'a big agenda that they want to force on others' and yet he doesn't debate with people who impute their own motivations onto his replies.

No wonder he's sorry.

 

Who will he debate with? He is trying to CBT everything! Surely that's a big agenda he's trying to force on healthcare. Isn't he an activist for the CBT lobby???

 

Sharpe has done a lot of consulting for the insurance industry, arguing to deny benefits and payments to ME patients. He did the same in advising against government disability benefits. Those are basically two of the biggest big money agendas. His entire career is built on this. He faces enormous loss of professional reputation once this breaks. He has both a personal and a professional agenda driving everything he does.

He's just projecting. That's why this lot makes accusations of bullying and anti-science ideological stubbornness: that's what they're doing.

 

Anyone who agrees with him.

 

I couldnt agree more. If it werent so diabolical it'd be amusing that a shrink was doing it.

 

Michael Sharpe's debating technique:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA5UqUyFmT0

 

Moderator note:
This post and following posts discussing the Guardian podcast have been moved to this thread

What role should the public play in science? - Science Weekly podcast
The Guardian's Science Weekly podcast , 2 Nov 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/science...public-play-in-science-science-weekly-podcast

 

Kelland’s report states:

The above suggests that Cochrane had made the decision to withdraw the review, and that it would not be reinstated unless Larun was able to adequately address feedback.

The new note below the review states:

Withdrawing the review until the author has adequately addressed the feedback is not the same as allowing the review to stand until the author has attempted to address the feedback with a new submission. It therefore appears that Tovey and Churchill have been persuaded to change their minds and give Larun more time.

 

Does 'editorial process' include peer review?

 

I think we can assume that.

 

The question is by whom ?

 

Yes it is.

 

How the hell can they resubmit, assure sound and well considered peer review and make a decision on republication by the end of November. This whole thing just seems bizarre.

From Toveys statement it seems that Larun explicitly expressed that her group would be able to resubmit before the end of November.

Did she have a review B sitting and waiting just incase?

The original review was bunk, just retract it.