Phoenix Rising: The Gift That Keeps on Giving All Year Long
This holiday season Jody Smith turns her eyes to the people of Phoenix Rising and gives thanks for you all ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

The Lancet (UK) editorial: "What's in a name? Systemic exertion intolerance disease"

Discussion in 'Institute of Medicine (IOM) Government Contract' started by Sasha, Feb 20, 2015.

  1. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,778
    Likes:
    34,181
    UK
  2. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,778
    Likes:
    34,181
    UK
    Oh shit... The Lancet is defending PACE.

    But interesting that they're unable to spin the IOM report as they'd like and that it's putting them on the defensive.
     
    Kati, justy, Woolie and 7 others like this.
  3. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,583
    Likes:
    18,182
    moderated with many others
    I particularly liked this bit

    I think the editorial team on the lancet are clearly deluded if they think the criticisms of PACE have been addressed.

    It does show that we need to point out the flaws on the original trials that the Cochrane review looked at unquestioningly.

    I wonder how the PACE trial results paved the way for the IoM report?
     
    garcia, WillowJ, meadowlark and 19 others like this.
  4. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,095
    Likes:
    17,172
    Nonsense. The IOM report is a robust rejection of the whole philosophy underlying PACE and other such trials.
     
    WillowJ, meadowlark, Kati and 22 others like this.
  5. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,095
    Likes:
    17,172
    Nice subliminal message there.
     
    cigana, meadowlark, justy and 14 others like this.
  6. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Revolting Peasant

    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes:
    5,328
    Scotland
    Look! You answered your own question.
     
    justy, zzz, SOC and 6 others like this.
  7. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,095
    Likes:
    17,172
    The Lancet is damning the IOM report with faint praise. The editorial is actually a total diss but in carefully crafted seemingly positive language. The last sentence that talks about "a condition that causes deep community anxiety" is a thinly-veiled reference to mass hysteria.
     
    justy, taniaaust1, zzz and 10 others like this.
  8. deleder2k

    deleder2k Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,115
    Likes:
    4,782
    This is the worst thing I've ever read. What about the criteria used in the Cochrane review? Mostly good old Oxford.

     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
    justy, MeSci, snowathlete and 2 others like this.
  9. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,334
    Likes:
    14,599
    The Lancet is a medical journal renowned for taking strong political stances on issues; the Lancet sees its role as going a bit beyond purely publishing scientific papers.

    Generally, the Lancet's political stances seem to reflect a vaguely liberal or leftist position; but they also seem to want to court controversy sometimes (eg: publishing the Wakefield MMR–autism study, later retracted; calling for a total ban on tobacco; disputing the Vatican's view on condoms for HIV).

    A quick look at the Wikipedia article about the Lancet indicates the range of areas in which they take a political stance.

    Unfortunately, the Lancet's political stance on ME/CFS has always favored the psychosomatic view, and the promotion of GET/CBT.

    In many respects, the Lancet's political view on ME/CFS seems to be a bit at odds with the political stances they take. If you had scanned the list of their various political stances in the Wikipedia article, and then were asked what their position on ME/CFS might be, you would probably guess that they would be against GET/CBT, and in favor of the biomedical model of ME/CFS research and treatment.

    But this is not the case, and I find it a little strange that the Lancet's political stance for ME/CFS is pro-psychiatry and pro-GET/CBT.

    Perhaps this stance reflects the fact that the Lancet publishes a journal on psychiatry (The Lancet Psychiatry). But equally, they also publish a journal on neurology (The Lancet Neurology), which you might expect to take up a biomedical perspective on ME/CFS.

    Here is a list of the Lancet journals:
    The Lancet
    The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology
    The Lancet Global Health
    The Lancet Haematology
    The Lancet HIV
    The Lancet Infectious Diseases
    The Lancet Neurology
    The Lancet Oncology
    The Lancet Psychiatry
    The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
    EBioMedicine
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
    Woolie, Art Vandelay, Aurator and 2 others like this.
  10. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,946
    England (south coast)
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
    justy likes this.
  11. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,946
    England (south coast)
    The article actually starts off in quite a reasonable fashion, until the fourth paragraph when they start talking about PACE and GET.

    I get the feeling that the bits about PACE & GET had input from (i.e. were written by) Sharpe & co., and Wessely's Tweet perhaps confirms this.

    It's a shame that the Lancet is demonstrating its bias and lack of rigour once again.
     
    justy, Woolie, Aurator and 9 others like this.
  12. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,946
    England (south coast)
    Interesting, thanks HIP. I'd noticed the contradictions as well, which were also highlighted when they were attacking patients for challenging the PACE trial. You'd have thought that their political mind-set would have led them to welcome patient involvement, but instead they went on the defensive/offensive. BTW, I think the Lancet Psychiatry is brand new, publishing their first journal in Jan this year.
     
    Woolie and Valentijn like this.
  13. msf

    msf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,188
    Likes:
    4,451
    Dolphin likes this.
  14. DanME

    DanME Senior Member

    Messages:
    286
    Likes:
    1,301
    I don't like it is in the Lancet, but I think, it is actually kind of funny, how desperately written this piece is. First, you clearly see, that they cannot circumvent the IOM report. They have to admit the new criteria make kind of sense and that the cause of the disease is not known (this means it is also not known, if it's psychological or psychosomatic). Then they actually praise the report in hoping it could change the future of this disease. Of course, the rest is just deluded nonsense. The PACE trial didn't pave the way for this report and the critisism wasn't unjust and unfair. But for me it sounds just whiney and very unprofessional:

    "The IOM was heavily and negatively lobbied by the CFS/ME community for undertaking this review."

    "was subject to widespread and unjust criticism from parts of the CFS/ME community and some advocacy groups in 2011."

    It sad, but actually also interesting, it seems to be good evidence, how powerful the IOM report truly is, if they have to be so defensive and whiny to make their point.
     
    Daisymay, Woolie, Dolphin and 8 others like this.
  15. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,778
    Likes:
    34,181
    UK
    justy, zzz, Aurator and 3 others like this.
  16. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes:
    23,188
    Very funny. The PACE trial isn't even mentioned by the IOM report as far as I can tell (by searching for "PACE" in the document). 9000 studies and the PACE trial isn't worth mentioning :)

    Someone should point this out to the Lancet.
     
    Amaya2014, justy, zzz and 14 others like this.
  17. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards "Gibberish"

    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes:
    31,869
    This all seems to be completely devoid of any intellectual content or even the expression of an interesting opinion. The author does not even seem to be able to make up his mind what he is wanting to say. The more I see of this stuff the less surprised I am that it gets 'negative lobbying'.
     
    Apple, Mel9, WillowJ and 23 others like this.
  18. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,334
    Likes:
    14,599
    Oh OK; so I wonder which of the Lancet journals the PACE stuff was published in?

    More than that: since The Lancet are by no means controversy-shy — they seem to court controversy sometimes — so you'd think that the Lancet would relish the chance to formulate and uphold a highly enlightened political position regarding the controversial area of ME/CFS. The nature of their political mind-set suggests the Lancet could and should develop into a positive force here, in their position on ME/CFS, leading the way.

    If they have upheld science against religious views on condoms for AIDS prevention, likewise, you'd think the Lancet would see its true calling here, and relish the chance to play a central political role in upholding the biomedical perspective on ME/CFS, over these wishy-washy psychiatric theories of ME/CFS — psychiatric theories which read more like superstitious religious notions than scientific approaches to ME/CFS.
     
    Mel9, Woolie, Valentijn and 2 others like this.
  19. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,984
    What's that noise I hear? Why, it sounds like Teh Great Unravelling starting to gather PACE.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
    charlie1, justy, taniaaust1 and 11 others like this.
  20. adreno

    adreno PR activist

    Messages:
    4,843
    Likes:
    11,018
    Perhaps shaken, the author is trying to bet on all horses.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page