Independent advisory group for the full update of the Cochrane review on exercise therapy and ME/CFS (2020), led by Hilda Bastian

Fully agree. But from their perspective, at this time they would be idiots if they were not consulting lawyers in some cases when deciding how to reply. Idiotic they may be in some ways, but I doubt they are when it comes down to self preservation.

 

How awful, that they know it's bad enough to consult with lawyers, but yet they still won't put a stop to the harm it's all causing! I just don't understand how they can live with that, and then to also throw back the nonsense responses...

 

Well, we don't know for sure that they are consulting lawyers and even if they are they are perfectly entitled to.

It's the fact it's so blatant that patient interests come a very distant last in their priorities. This should undermine their credibility & yet they seem confident that it doesn't and with good reason it would appear.

I see no problem with someone making a good living out of helping & healing people but when patients are seen as marks or walking cash cows then I have a huge problem with that.

 

Agreed. The NHS has very deep pockets, along with even longer arms. There is no way they would run out of money to defend themselves in a court of law because they just use taxpayers' money. And all they really have to do is have more money than an individual patient, and that would be pretty much everyone.

 

It is only a supposition of mine, that's all. But I find myself asking: "Would they not be consulting lawyers at this time, given how they are forever dropping themselves in it?"

 

Pretty much. Which is why (as I've said all along) PACE will never be retracted. They would only do so if they were sufficiently embarrassed by it.

 

If they were sued and lost ?
If Dr Myhill' s GMC crusade found in her favour ?
????

 

It's definitely preferred that there is a general agreement. But journals retract or correct things when they need to over the objections of authors. In many cases, some co-authors on a paper might agree to a correction or retractions while other co-authors won't.

 

Sorry for not being up to speed on this, but are the IAG waiting for NICE? Because that seems to be the wrong way round.
If I'd known that were the case, I would have submitted my comment to NICE and not Cochrane. But I guess it's too late now.

 

There is no IAG yet. So no.

 

I don't understand.

So this meant nothing?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1268164130063527936

 

She used the future tense. Something to happen, in time.

 

Time is of the essence. I thought she meant weeks, not years!

 

“At the appropriate juncture, in due course, in the fullness of time” as Sir Humphrey might say.

As far as I’m aware we’ve not had any news of progress since Hilda was appointed IAG lead over a year ago. Last April we were told there would be a progress report “soon”. In February we were told “A progress report is a high priority, and plan to have it out well before the end of this month.”

@Hilda Bastian Can you tell us whether any members of the IAG have been appointed yet?

 

She specifically said "a few months". I know there is a pandemic on, but this is important for those with LongCovid too.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1237465319641239552

 

see my post here https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-me-scandal.19828/#post-335681
for subtitles from ME Scandal video section on Cochrane exercise review.