Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

But they were all deceived (the many disciplines of medicine) for in secret a ring was forged to rule all the others (psychiatry's mind/body blather)*

The one ring would like to rule all the others by infiltrating and making it's goals the goals of all the others (it has been somewhat effective in neurology to date). Whatever discipline has even a single patient who's diagnosis cannot be pinned down with certainty psychiatry will claim them for it's own.

Psychiatry was a somewhat maligned discipline with a poor performance record. Someone took that quite personally and so here we are. Psychiatry will rule supreme. Muhahahah.

*the mind/body dichotomy/non-dichotomy is a non issue. The brain and body are the same thing and how our body processes data as mind is an as yet mostly undiscovered country and there is little to opine about with any certainty IMO. And this is exactly why they use the concept. It can mean anything they like and change with the weather.

 

I agree with most of what Goldacre has to say, it just seems this is a blindspot of his and we know why...

“There are all kinds of courage," said Dumbledore, smiling. "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/993937-there-are-all-kinds-of-courage-said-dumbledore-smiling-it

 

Just looked at Kelland's twitter feed, and saw she was sharing congratulations of Sharpe:

 

Not even bothering to hide it.

Sometimes it feels like the Royal College of Psychiatry is trolling over this. Because if this is truly the best UK psychiatry has to offer, well, that would explain a lot. Magical thinking elevated by institutions who choose empire-building over gatekeeping.

I wonder what was the inflection point to this descent into mediocrity.

 

Edit: It must be just the 2 new comments added. Not a new version number, and not a new date.

---

This note have been added in the version control/what's new. Not sure if this means changes to the review are done - or if it's just the 2 new comments added in the comments section?

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/information#whatsNew

 

Comment added Nov 5:

"The closest fit is probably the Multiple Sclerosis and rare diseases of the CNS? However, given that ME/CFS is thought to be more prevalent that multiple sclerosis and is not rare, it doesn't really fit into this group. Will a new Cochrane Review Group, be made for ME/CFS, that is in line with the published biomedical and physiological findings?"

 

The note on the Cochrane review states "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."

Does anyone have a sense of how long it will take for a decision to be made once they finish the editorial process?

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1067381170961297413

 

A delaying tactic could still do us a lot of harm though.

edit: I think I misunderstood Coyne's tweet. My expectation is that Cochrane will promote and support Larun's work despite her failure to refute the concerns raised. This will then set-back and delay other efforts.

 

I'm guessing 30 Nov (18!).

 

Very conveniently a Friday. We have to be very vigilant

 

Yes, I noted long time back that "the taxman" invariably seemed to send bad news timed to arrive on a Friday, so you had to stew (and maybe cool down?!) over the weekend before any chance of talking to them on Mon.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1067673831614136320


https://twitter.com/user/status/1067792456132034561


Edit: thread discussing her complaint

 

Cochrane have posted an update on the review

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/information#history

Isn't Tovey leaving Cochrane in May?

 

I'm guessing they are struggling with red tape specifically -the not withdrawing the review without the author's permission thing?

I like this bit though (my bolding):

It's almost (but not quite) an admission that previous review was completely unfit for purpose.

 

Sounds like they're continuing to try to allow this group of authors to assert power over us, despite quite clearly showing that they're not fit to do so. Terrible.