David Tuller: Trial By Error: Cochrane's Report on Courtney's Complaint

I was assuming if the source was simple it would have been included in the article. It doesn't say. The only alternative I can think of is someone who wants to remain anonymous, temporarily or for the foreseeable future or unresolved proceedings that allowed to use this one piece.

A whistleblower would be nice. But as the update adds, public records are nice too.

 

Yes on principle but probably not those outlets. They made the choice to act as PR representatives for the SMC. Ideally this should be in a more formal publication, though not necessarily a scientific journal.

 

A fellow PWME sent a FOI request for it. The Norwegian Public Institute of Health had no lawful way of not making it public even if they wanted. FOI requests are quite common in Norway. All correspondence to or from governmental agencies is to be listed. To, from, and the title is listed, and the one can send a FOI to get it. The site einnsyn.no don't keep the correspondence. They only list the from, to and the subject. They forward the FOI request to the agency that received or sent the document/case (Norwegian Public of Health in this instance). They granted access to the document, and sent it to a PWME who shared it anonymously to Tuller.

Everyone can send a FOI/ask for documents there. They can refuse a request for a number of reasons. They mainly include if a document is internal work at an governmental agency, or if a document is contains personal sensitive stuff. They may also erase/black out the sensitive stuff in some cases.

If someone heres tries to get a hold of a document and it gets rejected, an appeal can be made. I've been successful with appeals many times.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1118401966776954880

 

see also
How to make sense of a Cochrane systematic review
https://breathe.ersjournals.com/content/10/2/134

 

This gave me the best laugh I've had for a long time!

If only!

 

Rules are useless if they aren't even enforced, more so when arbitrary exemptions are made purely out of bias and prejudice.

I particularly love that both CBT and GET reviews fail on every single measure of bias, yet they are both marked as low possibility of bias. Makes a complete joke of their process.