The 12th Invest in ME Conference, Part 1
OverTheHills presents the first article in a series of three about the recent 12th Invest In ME international Conference (IIMEC12) in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

CBT/Get - disappointing Lancet response

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Old Bones, Jan 30, 2017.

  1. Old Bones

    Old Bones GOING, going . . .

    Messages:
    806
    Likes:
    4,863
    Here's the text of an email received today from the National ME/FM Action Network (Canada):

    "In December our CEO, Lydia Neilson sent a letter to Mr. Horton at the Lancet. Last week, she received a reply from Elizabeth Zuccala, Senior Editor of the Lancet.

    Below is a follow-up letter to Elizabeth Zuccala from Lydia Neilson.

    ***
    Ref. D-16-08953

    Dear Ms Zuccala:

    Please understand that the letter sent to Mr. Horton on December 18, 2016 represent the opinions of the National ME/FM Action Network and that of the people suffering from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). Our organization is a National one for Canada but are in touch with people around the world who contact us, including the UK who have been avidly keeping up to date about what The Lancet is planning to do.

    This is an international dilemma where people for ME/CFS are being subjected to psychological therapies under the PACE study for a medical illness. Now that the facts have been exposed as to the actual data of the PACE study, it is important that The Lancet corrects its position on ME/CFS and amend the PACE study to reflect that fact.

    For your convenience, I am attaching a copy of our original letter to Editor, Richard Horton, of The Lancet. This is not about publishing or not publishing a letter, this is about putting people with ME/CFS in danger when treated with CBT/GET therapy. Unless and until the proper steps are taken by The Lancet to correct this useless and dangerous treatment for people with ME/CFS, we will continue to pursue any and all ways possible to have this travesty eliminated. The Lancet does not only owe this to the ME/CFS community but the credibility of The Lancet and scientists and researchers. If medical and scientific data cannot be depended upon as being accurate and scientific, then The Lancet becomes no longer a viable source for medical information.

    Sincerely,

    Lydia E. Neilson, MSM
    Founder and CEO
    NATIONAL ME/FM ACTION NETWORK


    Email from the Lancet

    On Friday, January 27, 2017 6:44 AM, The Lancet Peer Review Team <eesserver@eesmail.elsevier.com> wrote:

    Manuscript reference number: THELANCET-D-16-08953
    Title: Correspondence

    Dear Ms Neilson,

    Thank you for submitting your Letter to The Lancet. Having discussed your Letter with the Editor, and weighing it up against other submissions we have under consideration, I am sorry to say that we are unable to accept it at this time. Please be reassured that your Letter has been carefully read and discussed by the Editors. Thank you for your interest in The Lancet, I hope this decision does not deter you from considering us again in the future.

    Yours sincerely

    Elizabeth Zuccala
    Senior Editor"


    Bolded emphasis is mine.
     
  2. Valentijn

    Valentijn WE ARE KINA

    Messages:
    14,283
    Likes:
    45,795
    The Lancet is run by unscrupulous quacks. Not a surprising response, albeit disappointing as always.
     
    TiredSam, ScottTriGuy, Sean and 11 others like this.
  3. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,780
    Likes:
    34,140
    UK
    Bizarre. They've treated it as a submission for publication.
     
  4. Tyto alba

    Tyto alba

    Messages:
    83
    Likes:
    334
    Feigned ignorance.
     
    trishrhymes, Hutan and Joh like this.
  5. Joh

    Joh Inactivist

    Messages:
    663
    Likes:
    4,226
    Germany
    No worries, we'll not lose interest in The Lancet and will definitely consider writing you again. ;)

    Do they even know how much harm they cause? Even in Germany disability claims are rejected because of PACE and our GP guidelines for "tiredness" are based on it (GPs are advised to motivate CFS sufferers to try ball games or dancing). :devil:
     
  6. sarah darwins

    sarah darwins I told you I was ill

    Messages:
    2,446
    Likes:
    10,406
    Cornwall, UK
    ROFL, and :bang-head:
     
  7. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes:
    13,677
    UK
    It means they have no rational response to the original letter, and they hope no one will notice their offering an irrational one instead. They know they have to do something, but cannot think of anything sensible.
     
  8. lnester7

    lnester7 Seven

    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes:
    3,311
    USA
    The only way is the legal action. What resources can it be used legally?
     
  9. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,780
    Likes:
    34,140
    UK
    I don't think we can really interpret their response one way or another. It could just be incompetence. In NMFAN's position, I'd write back to The Lancet and make it clear that it was a complaint to the journal, not a submission to their letters page, and set a deadline for a response.
     
  10. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,780
    Likes:
    34,140
    UK
    @charles shepherd, it amazes me that it's legal for a medical journal to knowingly allow a clear mistake (clinical efficacy thresholds that are below the level of trial entry thresholds) to stand in a publication that will affect patient care.

    Are The Lancet in breach of any laws?

    They're in breach of their own editorial guidelines but those seem to be just for decoration. The Beano is probably better regulated.
     
  11. AndyPR

    AndyPR RIP PR :'(

    dennis.jpeg
     
  12. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes:
    13,677
    UK
    Me too. I sincerely hope that once the truth of this whole sorry saga becomes properly understood by the wider public, that legal investigations follow. And I hope all those who have deliberately deceived, cheated, and feathered their own nests without regard for the detriment it has done to others, ponder on this. I think they need to consider whether they should really be digging themselves into the same legal hole that others are dragging them into, or instead stand up, finally, for what is right and decent and honest.

    And I hope it happens sooner rather than later.
     
  13. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet CURRENTLY MODERATED FOR NOT BEING SERVILE

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes:
    7,556
    Waste of time....why do they think that any scientific journal would do that?
     
  14. All about protecting the "Established Order", ensuring their official version of things are not challenged
    this is the reason behind MANY evils and stupid actions in Britain
    they will do ANYTHING to preserve their appearance of omnipotence
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page