Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

And of course this bit is spectaculary untrue.

It's controversial because it goes against patients experiences - and the main symptom of the illness.

It's controversial - because the claims made goes against solid research, on the very bad effects exercise have on an ME-sick persons body.

 

Lillebeth Larun is from "Kunnskapssenteret", which only quite recently became a part of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. It wasn't when the review got started (if I've understood this correct, that is).

 

Because of this little tidbit, from Simon Wessely: "But before he joined the scientific establishment, Goldacre used to work for me."

So a critic of bad science refuses to criticized textbook bad science because of a personal relationship with the architect of this bad science.

That amounts to a food critic insisting that a chef's spaghetti with ketchup is fine cuisine and anyone institing otherwise is a hack.

It's gonna leave a mark once the suspension of disbelief lifts and people wonder how often Goldacre did that.

 

Wessely's research and colleagues have held monopoly on this disease for 2 decades. How is discussion being prevented when their personal beliefs of this disease literally make up the official guidelines and are the only research being significantly funded?

Which, of course, they know is bullshit because they lie shamelessly.

 

I have written to Ottersen.

 

"
The secret of Goldacre’s early success
is simple. We love people getting it wrong. Watching people making fools of themselves is always more interesting..."

"Goldacre’s skill is to use all these examples of epic ignorance or failures to draw out important principles of how science actually works, and how statistics should be used".

has he read the paper? (ie PACE)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1057210381196845056

 

This is such a long thread, so apologies if this has already been noted before.

In the Cochrane review on page 1 it states the following selection criteria for the studies under review ...


Yet the 2011 paper did not claim PACE to be a controlled trial ...

https://www.s4me.info/threads/a-general-thread-on-the-pace-trial.807/page-11#post-90488

Was it legitimate to include PACE in this review?

ETA: I realise @Jonathan Edwards picked this up in another post earlier in that thread ...

https://www.s4me.info/threads/a-general-thread-on-the-pace-trial.807/page-11#post-90478

Just wondering if we are making sure to pick up on the same point this time around.

 

I doubt it was legitimate to include any of these trials since none of them were effectively controlled. A controlled trial is a trial that is adequately controlled. My memory from reviewing this was that none could be considered controlled trials, although PACE is the one I am most familiar with.

 

Thank you

I can't remember ever seeing his name in the "ME-debate" here, so they are really pulling ranks to defend their work.

 

So the reviewers effectively violated their own stated selection criteria, which they stated in their paper. Doesn't seem very scientific.

 

sorry, typo

 

They started making those claims in the late 80s but it's not clear when they began to gain legitimacy or when the control was officially passed to them. It seems earlier than at least 2003, when they were able to have approval for FINE, a clear sign that they already had enough influence to push their beliefs.

Late 90s seems to be a turning point, when they got the insurers on board. But it'll be fascinating to read the whole story one day. A post-mortem to one of the biggest and cruelest blunders in medical history, driven by greed and hubris.

 

Just found this...

 

Well what a surprise! @Lucibee

 

I'm sure he's trying to make a point here but I don't see it. This is incredibly amateur work you'd expect from a first year university student.

At best it shows biomedical researchers do biomedical research and psychiatric researchers do psychiatric research.

I guess this is for his mind-body mission in life to place psychiatry as the master discipline of medicine, that the division should not be there in his opinion, even though reality says exactly the opposite.

 

What's the point of this paper and when was it written? I don't understand the significance of it to us.

 

Irony. It neatly explains why the Cochrane review on exercise therapy is not up to much.