David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Letter about MUS to the British Journal of General Practice

An astute editor might see this as an opportunity to steal a march on his competitors by showing a greater commitment to accuracy, integrity and ethical standards. A first very tentative step has been made. It just needs a little further reflection.

 

The British Journal of General Practice is not strictly speaking a research journal. It is a professional journal - it represents the interests of a particular profession - that of general practice.

Which may mean that correcting demonstrable errors could be a sacking offence, if the correction is not in the interest of the profession as judged by the board of trustees.

In the old days there was a distinction between research and professional journals - papers on your CV for research assessment came under either one or other category - with different Brownie points.

The BMJ has always been a professional journal. I am not sure about the Lancet - it seems to be above classification.

Over the years the mentality behind journals changed in various ways. Initially there was a change from professional chit-chat to hard research - when citation indices started to get kudos. But more recently publication has been taken over by the cynicism of the open market and almost everything is propaganda of one sort or another. Real science has almost disappeared.

So the editor's response might have been quite similar fifty years ago but not twenty five years ago.

 

So their profession takes precedence over patient care and safety, and scientific accuracy, that says it all really and from what we know from all these years of ME, not surprising in the least, but what an ethically and scientifically bankrupt perspective. Shame on them.

 

Am I the only one playing "find the new splendid word/turn of phrase @dave30th can't resist putting into each article"? As in "Promiscuous" etc? I wonder what it'll be this time?

Got it!

 

The zombie statistic that Professor Chew-Graham summoned into existence in an editorial in the British Journal of General Practice, for which Professor Roger Jones is responsible, is two years old.

I shall now fall upon my sword in a flagrant breach of Godwin's Law - would Roger Jones conclude that a holocaust denier should not be challenged because the data are now 70 years old?

 

take the 'watch' bit away and there's not much difference.

 

http://www.virology.ws/2019/05/20/t...r-to-the-british-journal-of-general-practice/

 

Nice

 

Wrong organisation.

 

The comment by Goudsmit is bizarre in other ways too. It suggests that instead of a statute of limitations, they have a protocol of limitations with a period of four weeks. We are expected to be grateful that they may extend the period. Some people need to "get real".

 

I agree, especially when it looks as if there is another set of guidelines under IAPT that puts ME/CFS under MUS and justifies the overall MUS approach by reference to findings in ME/CFS.

 

She seems a little defensive about MUS. Is her view that MUS are the real somatizers, while true ME patients have an organic illness?

 

Musing upon the Goudsmit response has led to some idle speculation regarding the responses of her and Jones. What is the date of publication of uncorrected material made available on line?

There is a date of first publication, which is what they seem to be discussing. I would argue that there is ongoing publication. It is republished again when it is accessed. I am sure there must be legal precedents on this, but don't know what the answer is. It seems highly likely that the information was potentially published today.

And now a little quiz. Do you think Jones was associated with a) Bristol University b) Kings College c)other.

Congratulations if you answered b)

 

I think here she might be saying: a) British medicine in a phase where it arrogantly presumes inaccuracies don't matter, when of course they do. b) The 4-week protocol is maybe symptomatic of that arrogance, and that is currently how it works, even though it is cr*p. c) Given 'a' and 'b', they seem to be taking notice.

I suspect she may be also saying to not try fighting the system, but of course ... to hell with that! If that is the system then it is that which is screwing people up, so it simply has to be challenged.

 

It has always been a very draining waste of time in the past.

 

Three weeks it took. In the greater scheme of things that shows commendable speed, assuming the follow up is hasty, and adequately worded. But where, exactly, does this leave Chew-Graham?