-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn
- Thread starter Trish
- Start date
Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
'Problem at present is that pick &
Mix. Which is confusing - creates anxiety amongst carers and risks to all.'
Oh Dear, Dr Gerada, now we can see that you are just a religious believer in authority after all, not a critical scientist. People deserve to be treated with more respect - especially people from Yorkshire.
Mix. Which is confusing - creates anxiety amongst carers and risks to all.'
Oh Dear, Dr Gerada, now we can see that you are just a religious believer in authority after all, not a critical scientist. People deserve to be treated with more respect - especially people from Yorkshire.
Sasha
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I hope someone will tweet @Jonathan Edwards messages to Clare Gerada. I don't think I should as I'm already involved in the conversation with her. And I don't know how to copy posts into tweets!
Daisymay
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Clare Gerada tweeted:
"As long as you take full accountability when things go wrong. You can’t have authority without accountability."
So true, hopefully the day will come when all who have for decades made their careers on the back of seriously ill ME patients, will be held accountable.
"As long as you take full accountability when things go wrong. You can’t have authority without accountability."
So true, hopefully the day will come when all who have for decades made their careers on the back of seriously ill ME patients, will be held accountable.
Binkie4
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
That tweet by Clare Gerada is priceless.
Kalliope
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Suffolkres
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Or are they a "PITA" couple? I will leave you all to guess the acronym!
I'm losing the plot here. Why does Clare Gerada need to treat her husband with more respect? What do you know that we don't? Better not answer that
obeat
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
What does she think of e.g. the breast cancer lobby groups? Or does it depend on which lobby group you are? Why call them unrepresentative, when the NICE guidelines committee 2007 was unrepresentative?
It may be that, in part, but it possibly also goes back to the David, Wessely and Pelosi paper in (edit 1988) when this view was also expressed, blaming, if I remember, the close personal involvement with the outcome.
It was interesting that Mowbray also expressed the opinion that sufferers should not be involved in research but for the completely different, and understandable, reason that research is long, hard and painstaking and may tax their capacities.
I massively agree - the point here is not around whether ME/CFS is a physical or mental condition (and if, as I think most likely, it turns out to be neuroimmune, which of those categories would you use?). It's that even if ME/CFS were shown to be a mental illness, GET still wouldn't be an effective intervention. Getting into an all-in-the-head vs all-in-the-blood debate detracts from that key fact.
ME/CFS Skeptic
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I want to come back to the Reuters news article. On twitter Adam Lowe gave some interesting insight into the reporter Kate Kelland. Apparently she has a track record of industry-biased reporting (https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/acc_loves_katekelland/) In an article about her reporting on glyphosate, Fair.org (https://fair.org/home/reuters-vs-un-cancer-agency-are-corporate-ties-influencing-science-coverage/) noted: “
So I guess that it was no coincidence that she got hold of the internal emails and the scoop. I suspect that the proponents of the Larun review wanted to break the news story, so they could control its (initial) framing.
“Raising further questions about her objectivity as a science reporter are Kelland’s ties to the Science Media Centre (SMC), a controversial nonprofit PR agency in the UK that connects scientists with reporters, and gets its largest block of funding from industry groups and companies, including chemical industry interests.
SMC, which has been called “science’s PR agency,” launched in 2002 partly as an effort to tamp down news stories driven by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, according to its founding report. SMC has been accused of playing down the environmental and human health risks of some controversial products and technologies, according to multiple researchers who have studied the group.
Kelland’s bias in favor of the group is evident, as she appears in the SMC promotional video and the SMC promotional report, regularly attends SMC briefings, speaks at SMC workshops and attended meetings in India to discuss setting up an SMC office there.”
SMC, which has been called “science’s PR agency,” launched in 2002 partly as an effort to tamp down news stories driven by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, according to its founding report. SMC has been accused of playing down the environmental and human health risks of some controversial products and technologies, according to multiple researchers who have studied the group.
Kelland’s bias in favor of the group is evident, as she appears in the SMC promotional video and the SMC promotional report, regularly attends SMC briefings, speaks at SMC workshops and attended meetings in India to discuss setting up an SMC office there.”
So I guess that it was no coincidence that she got hold of the internal emails and the scoop. I suspect that the proponents of the Larun review wanted to break the news story, so they could control its (initial) framing.
Stewart
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I'm sure they did. And I'm sure that Gerada, Sharpe et al are tweeting about it this morning to try and create a sense of 'outrage' amongst the scientific community so they can discredit this decision by Cochrane. It'll be interesting to see how much traction their version of the narrative gets, and who else (apart from the decreasing number of usual suspects) is willing to stand alongside them.