Phoenix Rising supports the Millions Missing global day of protest
Phoenix Rising is delighted to support the demands being made in the ME/CFS community’s first-ever global day of protest …
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Lancet - editorial - 'a proper place for retraction'.

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by RogerBlack, Aug 25, 2017.

  1. RogerBlack

    RogerBlack Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Likes:
    2,780
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(17)30458-9/fulltext

    In part.
    Contrast with:
    The argument of course is that criticisms of CBT/GET are misguided, and that we should be properly respectful of the scientific method that lead to them, following the defences by White, Wessley et al in their FAQ, for example.(failing to note the obvious fact that that FAQ fails to address most of the criticism)

    Neglecting that the argument is not against the conclusion, but about the terrible methodology, and the fact the effect sizes for CBT or GET are utterly trivial compared with the headlines in the abstracts.Or comparing them with the fatigue score changes when double-blind rituximab is given (after a delay in onset of several months).

    The comment in the middle
    is comedic.
    A retraction is in no way 'expunging the record' in a manner which makes the work unavailable.

    It is possible to submit comments to editorials, but not online.
     
    Woolie, dangermouse, MEMum and 16 others like this.
  2. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,636
    Likes:
    28,050
    Note that this is The Lancet Infectious Diseases
     
    dangermouse, snowathlete and Esther12 like this.
  3. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    827
    Likes:
    3,648
    Ye bullshit is very catchy.
     
    Woolie, dangermouse, GreyOwl and 5 others like this.
  4. Esther12

    Esther12

    Messages:
    8,454
    Likes:
    28,536
    That is ridiculous.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2017
    Wonko and MEMum like this.
  5. trishrhymes

    trishrhymes Save PR. Sack the President of the Board.

    Messages:
    2,155
    Likes:
    17,892
    ''Other recent work targeted by calls for retraction include studies of cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome. In these cases the criticisms have centred on the methods, but the fact that similar criticisms have been repeated on subsequent studies suggests that it is the conclusions that are at issue.''

    As an example of unscientific reasoning that really takes the biscuit.

    We say - PACE methods unsound.
    We say - GETSET methods unsound.
    We say - FITNET methods unsound.

    In what system of logic does this prove that the methods of all these studies are sound and we just don't like the outcomes.
     
  6. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    827
    Likes:
    3,648
    Well the funny thing is when you assess the conclusions using the original protocols after forcing the publishers to release data they unscientifically kept withholding, the outcomes are zero efficacy from the treatments.

    So just which conclusions are they claiming we object to?

    We objected to their methods a legal judge forced them to release their data in a court after we took them to that court and now the data shows their treatments don't work.

    Simple.
     
  7. JohnCB

    JohnCB Immoderate

    Messages:
    349
    Likes:
    2,512
    England
    Oi, Mr/Ms Lancet. Of course the conclusions are at issue.

    The conclusions are at issue because they were justified by poor interpretations of incomplete results generated by poor methodology of a poorly designed study with moving goalposts that looked to all intents and purposes to have intended to reach that conclusion regardless.
     
  8. GreyOwl

    GreyOwl Dx: strong belief system, avoidance, hypervigilant

    Messages:
    255
    Likes:
    899
    The objections to later research are because they were based, in no small part, from the conclusions of the first.
     
    ballard, dangermouse, MEMum and 4 others like this.
  9. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes:
    13,674
    UK
    They seem to suffer from common sense blindness. If a paper has a hugely adverse effect on how patients are treated, medically as well as in the wider context, and that treatment is found to be grossly incorrect, then the damage has to stop. The paper's adverse influence therefore has to stop; it must be retracted. Not rocket science, just good science and good ethics - a fundamental respect for basic human rights.
     
    Woolie, ballard, dangermouse and 6 others like this.
  10. ScottTriGuy

    ScottTriGuy Stop the harm. Start the research and treatment.

    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes:
    4,319
    Toronto, Canada
    Decision-based evidence-making.
     
  11. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes:
    17,930
    Or it suggests that the subsequent studies still suffered from similar methodological weaknesses, because researchers learned nothing from the problems with previous studies raised by the critics.

    Next you know they will be whining about the public's loss of faith in experts. :meh:
     
  12. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,385
    Likes:
    34,633
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Plus they did not correct the methodological mistakes of the earlier research.
     
  13. slysaint

    slysaint Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    Likes:
    11,423
    W. Sussex UK
    Although they are not mandatory the HRA do have protocol guidelines for research. I only skimmed thro this
    http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2016/11/qualitative-protocol-development-tool.docx
    there are more here:
    http://www.hra.nhs.uk/hra-training/tools/

    there are another set of guidelines for clinical trials but they refer to drug trials.

    How do all the BPS 'therapy/treatment' trials fit into all this? ie are they classed as clinical trials?

    I don't know enough about all this but it just amazes me that there appear to be no compulsory/enforceable regulations and very vague accountability.
     
    Invisible Woman, Wonko, MEMum and 4 others like this.
  14. Joh

    Joh Inactivist

    Messages:
    655
    Likes:
    4,200
    Germany
     
  15. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    827
    Likes:
    3,648
    Thakyou for getting your mates to plant the "thoughtful comments" there.
     
    Invisible Woman likes this.
  16. hinterland

    hinterland

    Messages:
    31
    Likes:
    91
    But elsewhere the PACE-team have claimed the trial was targeted from the outset, as evidence of predjudice. Now their friends at the Lancet are saying it is the end product (conclusion) we find inconvenient - nevermind what's happened in between, the scientific method part, nothing to see there.

    It isn't the concluslions it's the whole dodgy idealogy of the BPS movement, and potential for harm to ME/CFS patients, a medical condition they're incapable of understanding.
     
    Woolie, ballard, Cheshire and 5 others like this.
  17. Esther12

    Esther12

    Messages:
    8,454
    Likes:
    28,536
    This pisses me off so much too! When was the permissable time to criticise this research?!
     
    Woolie, MEMum, dangermouse and 5 others like this.
  18. Valentijn

    Valentijn WE ARE KINA

    Messages:
    14,283
    Likes:
    45,784
    According to the Lancet? Never. We're patients, and should shut up and do what our doctors tell us :p
     
    ballard, MEMum, dangermouse and 8 others like this.
  19. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    827
    Likes:
    3,648
    Except we are only allowed one doctor now and no access to any other health care practitioners.
     
  20. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards "Gibberish"

    Messages:
    5,211
    Likes:
    31,633
    I sometimes wish a did twitter but I am glad I do not. I might make myself look as stupid as Dr Sharpe. He really must be dumb if he thinks that persistently trotting out this drivel about 'inconvenient findings' will convince anyone who actually knows anything about science. It seems he really does not get it himself. If he did I think he would keep quiet like some of the others seem to be now.
     
    Maya24, Woolie, ballard and 9 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page