• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

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

RogerBlack

Senior Member
Messages
902
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(17)30458-9/fulltext

In part.
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.

Contrast with:
When somebody picks holes in your preconceptions, or undermines your pithy sound bite, it is not constructive to send them away with a flea in their ear; instead, they deserve gratitude for creating the opportunity to reflect on your preconceptions and ensure that decisions are made on the basis of the best evidence. If you are correct, then rebut forcefully to your heart's content.

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
Although it is trite to say so, it is nonetheless true that if we expunge the record of research missteps we fail to learn the lessons of the past.
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.
 
Messages
2,158
''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.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
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.
 

JohnCB

Immoderate
Messages
351
Location
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.
 
Messages
2,391
Location
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.
 

ScottTriGuy

Stop the harm. Start the research and treatment.
Messages
1,402
Location
Toronto, Canada
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.

Decision-based evidence-making.
 

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
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.
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:
 
Messages
2,125
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.
 
Messages
66
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(17)30458-9/fulltext
"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."
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.
 
Messages
13,774
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.

This pisses me off so much too! When was the permissable time to criticise this research?!
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256

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.