FITNET-NHS Esther Crawley - 5th protocol out now

Peer review . . . probably.
Robust peer review . . . not at all. Or at least not in the particular genre of research that matters to people who have no diagnostic test for illness. That peer reviewing is more along the lines of a 'gentlemen's club'.

 

Doesn't "peer review" mean that some short-sighted person has peered briefly at the abstract?

 

Here's an extract from @Trish post re Brian Hughes article*
"York researchers, commissioned by NICE to review the research evidence on which they had already published a review of the same trials full of caveats/limitations in JAMA several years earlier".
https://www.s4me.info/threads/nice-...-10th-november-2020.17687/page-51#post-362044

So it's pretty clear that the limitations of these studies [unblinded + subjective outcomes] were known. So yes it looks like a self lubricating wheel - you pay me (via Government grants) to say the right thing --- then I'll say it.

@Jonathan Edwards has some interesting insights e.g. ordinary people often being able to see more clearly than the (financially interested) academics. Also, being asked "whose side was he [Jonathan] on" i.e. the medical profession or the patients side - the answer is clear from his input here.

*'The Science Bit'
https://thesciencebit.net/2021/08/1...the-new-nice-guideline-ask-about-the-old-one/

 

(lost track of which protocols have been posted but found this one V7 from 2019)
protocol v_7

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...load/2029706&usg=AOvVaw2q7-_6ugWWqdY_Md2Kn7Ct