• 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, 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.

BIG NEWS! Cochrane to remove GET amidst deluge of complaints

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
Countrygirl,
"Sir Jimmy Saville"...yeah funny how the rich and powerful will give honours to silence any criticism of their panderers procurers and enbalers....isn't it?


and WHY is Reuters so biased? for it *is* bias
so who owns Reuters nowadays,. why is the Establishment so desperate to literally bury us?
and the evidence for this being biological goes back to mind 1950s and autopsies
but then again, the so-called "Medical profession" ignored the evidence, refused to treat research etc syphilis, HIV Multiple Sclerosis and many other illnesses over the years, as it's riddled with bigoted, or stupid scumbags
 

Galixie

Senior Member
Messages
220
It does look like Reuters did at least mention both sides of this coin:

"Tovey confirmed to Reuters that he had made a decision to withdraw the review temporarily, saying this would give the authors time to respond to several points in a complaint which “we felt ... raised issues we needed to address”.

“This not about patient pressure,” he added in a telephone interview. “This was a decision we reached with difficulty because we know the incredibly challenging environment this review sits in.”"

They may have given a lot of voice to the authors trying to get their findings published, who have the maturity of middle-schoolers defending their work by casting aspersions on everyone else, but they did also cover the viewpoint of the editors. It's nice that the editors mentioned that it wasn't solely patient pressure at the center of the controversy. I'm sure it was too much to ask for them to go into the detailed points that the editors want the authors to address. (Or they may have simply decided there wasn't room in the article to go into that much detail.)

The part of the story that I happen to question is this one: "Scientists conducting studies on potential therapies say they are often harassed and verbally abused by groups that disagree with their approach." Which scientist are complaining of this? What therapies are really being studied right now that are hotly contested to the point where verbal abuse can be alleged? That seems a bit extreme to me and should be backed up by facts before it is published in this type of article. That's just my two cents though.

Also, the clearly opinion part of the article seems to come from some random guy that is neither affiliated with the review or the study of ME/CFS, so why bother including his opinion at all? :meh:
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
the "Psychs" are NOT *scientists*
Opinions are not facts, it is a VAST difference

and unethical work, with obscene personal remunerations for their efforts to "prove" M.E. and other problems are "mental" provide as useless....You cannot damn well trust results of an experiment when there is such outrageous bias by the researchers!
it's a basic point of REAL scientific research that it must be "neutral", unbiased, factual, honest, open, carried out ethically with malice for none.
You cannot come to trustworthy conclusions from research carried out by zealots or crooks

The Psychs are either inhumane zealots or they are corrupt personally profiting from covering up "problems" for the medical insurance companies, governments and corporation[/FONT]s....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,476
Location
UK
Dr Clare Gerada aka Mrs Wessely fights back..........................and is being hammered......................

The succession of tweets following Mrs Wessely's attack on patients is worth reading and keeping for the record. Here is just a sample.Enjoy! ::)


Clare Gerada #FBPE‏@ClareGerada
FollowFollow @ClareGerada
More
withdrawal decision sets a worrying precedent for scientific evidence being over-ridden by the opinions of activists. (Colin Blakemore). > sad we are entering an era of bullying scientists when lobby groups disagree with the results.


12:03 PM - 17 Oct 2018

    1. New conversation

    2. Trish‏@ozfish Oct 17
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada
      Blakemore is wrong. Objections to the trials included in the Cochrane review of Exercise for ME/CFS are by doctors and scientists as well as patients and on the grounds of flawed science. No clinically significant objective evidence of efficacy. Exercise harms #pwME.



    3. Clare Gerada #FBPE‏@ClareGerada Oct 18
      More
      And do patients have no bias? What about powerful unrepresentative patient lobby groups ? Should not they have to publish their COI & funding sources.

      e

    4. Trish‏@ozfish Oct 18
      More
      That feels like a deep personal insult, Clare. I am shocked at it coming from a doctor. I've had ME for 29 years and am sole carer for my daughter who has had ME for 21 years. Of course I have a bias - a bias that I want us to get well. Cochrane was based on flawed science.




    5. Clare Gerada #FBPE‏@ClareGerada Oct 18
      More
      That you take it as a personal assault is not my intention. This is a difficult and often abusive area. I have lived with consequences for 25 years. Patient groups should have a code of conduct & be held to account for their statements, communications & actions.


    6. Trish‏@ozfish Oct 18
      More
      I am sorry if you have suffered any form of abuse. But to label a whole population of sufferers as abusive on the basis of a few is unprofessional and unkind. The criticisms of Cochrane are well founded in science. It was based on flawed trials. Why not address that?


    7. Barbieloo‏@BarbR666 7h7 hours ago
      More
      Because "they" can't, they won't, they don't wish to. Listening only to their "inner voices and their inner professional needs", not their patient community needs.

    1. Dr Keith Geraghty‏@keithgeraghty Oct 18
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada
      with respect Clare, the holding up of bad science, flawed evidence or findings under the wrong classification area, is also worrying; & I am not afraid of patients having a voice. Colin Blakemore is wrong to use combative language when talking about patients. Respect patients.

    2. Clare Gerada #FBPE‏@ClareGerada Oct 18
      More
      You can’t hide behind the ‘patient’ label when outside the ‘patient’ role. Not fair. Patients who are involved in lobbying are no more nor less valid than man on Clapham omnibus.

    3. Dr Keith Geraghty‏@keithgeraghty Oct 18
      More
      Many scientists have raised issues with evidence in RCTs of CBT and GET; some of those concerns were passed on to Cochrane, also patients wrote to Cochrane. How does this translate into 'militants'? Thats narrative creation & its stigmatising - respect must go all directions.

    1. New conversation

    2. Kati Debelic‏@Katiissick Oct 17
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada
      An engaged patient, participating in their own care and in the policies surrounding their own diseases should be considered as professional colleagues. Their experience as patients and as colleagues should be welcome. Enough of the paternalistic BS. It was last century!

    3. Clare Gerada #FBPE‏@ClareGerada Oct 18
      More
      As long as you take full accountability when things go wrong. You can’t have authority without accountability.
      Direct messag
    4. e

    5. Anton Mayer‏@MECFSNews Oct 18
      More
      Your side lacks any accountabiliy whatsoever. CBT/GET researchers engage in misconduct on a routine basis, distorting reality with disastrous consequences.


    6. Anton Mayer‏@MECFSNews Oct 18
      More
      And somehow you CBT/GET people manage to view yourselves as victims. It's incredible.

      Direct message

    7. Anton Mayer‏@MECFSNews Oct 18
      More
      I've never witnessed such callous systematic exploitation and oppression as has been inflicted by the CBT/GET brigades on patients.

      0 replies7 retweets41 likes

    1. New conversation

    2. Snowy‏@SnowyPanthera Oct 18
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada
      Do you believe unblinded pharmacological trials that rely entirely on subjective outcomes is reliable evidence, yes or no? The scientific problem with this Cochrane review is rating unreliable unblinded trials as low risk of bias...


    3. Clare Gerada #FBPE‏@ClareGerada Oct 18
      More
      I think Cochrane has lost its way. Sad. As used to be most trusted source.


    4. Snowy‏@SnowyPanthera Oct 18
      More
      You didn't answer my question.

    1. New conversation

    2. Jo Hurlow from Birmingham‏@open_debate Oct 17
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada


      DpviQx_WkAAqtiC.jpg

    3. It'sME(Jaime)‏@exceedhergrasp1 20h20 hours ago
      More
      Honest, I did NOT think this post was in agreement with the OP! This is literally what they have been doing: shouting over patient voices for decades. Shouting and waving doesn't make your science any more valid.

    1. Paul Watton‏@thegodofpleasur 7h7 hours ago
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada
      This isn't bullying, it's scientific discourse & your husband's side is losing the argument. However, acting as you do (as his proxy) & peddling an untruthful version of the facts, you violate your ethical responsibilities as a Dr. Please issue a correction. FYI @davidtuller1

    1. Dr. Homeslice‏@8Homeslice8 Oct 18
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada
      No, the article is very biased. It leaves out a lot of the story. It is not a small minority of patient 'activists' but actually most patients and many respectable scientists who object to exercise and psychological therapy for NE/CFS 1/


    2. Dr. Homeslice‏@8Homeslice8 Oct 18
      More
      The reason for these objections is not to override evidence or bulky scientists - it is because there is significant evidence that such treatments have caused irreparable and serious harm to many patients.


    3. Dr. Homeslice‏@8Homeslice8 Oct 18
      More
      There is much scientific evidence from Stanford, Harvard and ment other reputable institutions that ME/CFS patients have dysfunctional cell metabolism which makes exercise harmful. It's not just patients objecting but many high quality scientists too.


      Direct message

    4. Dr. Homeslice‏@8Homeslice8 Oct 18
      More
      Patients have suffered terrible neglect, stigma and bullying for decades. We are not activist who bully scientists- we are very sick people in need of appropriate medical care. There are many many scientists who agree with patients about the physiological nature of the disease.


    5. Dr. Homeslice‏@8Homeslice8 Oct 18
      More
      Articles like this one are simply gaslighting patients. The theories of pathology underlying exercise therapy are outdated. Newer evidence from places like Stanford and Harvard show that exerct is harmful for people with ME/CFS so scientists at forefront warn against it.

    6. Dr. Homeslice‏@8Homeslice8 Oct 18
      More
      Patients are arguing for this latest physiological and metabolic research to be taken into account when reviewing the safety of exercise therapy, to prevent further harm. We are not bullies - there are very good scientific reasons for criticising such reviews.

    1. New conversation

    2. Jacquie Wilson ‏@MEwarrior_au Oct 18
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada
      Being a GP, I am disappointed, & actually shocked, you’ve not kept up with the mounds of research showing exercise, GET & CBT are harmful to patients with ME! 50+ gold standard scientists from around the world recently met at Stanford to discuss their amazing findings. Two say:

      Dpyum9vUYAEgHvd.jpg


      Dpyum9uUUAAGjD3.jpg

    3. postersandme‏@postersandme 9h9 hours ago
      More


      Dp2mjEXWwAEmutZ.jpg

    1. New conversation

    2. John Thompson‏@TompsJ Oct 18
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada
      Prof Ron Davis, Stanford University, California said about the PACE trial "I’m shocked that the Lancet published it…The PACE study has so many flaws and there are so many questions you’d want to ask about it that I don’t understand how it got through any kind of peer review."

    1. New conversation

    2. Anne Boyd‏@urbantravelsLA Oct 18
      More
      Replying to @ClareGerada @kkelland
      This statement is disingenuous in the extreme. @cochranecollab might not look kindly on the mischaracterization of the withdrawal as a cowering response to "bullying". Cochrane has rightly decided that there are legitimate and substantial methodological problems with the review.


    3. justME‏@FeelingSeidy Oct 18
      More
      I’m sure @cochranecollab can fight their own battles. I have faith they will make their own decision based on current scientific evidence, and don’t need apologists making excuses for them.


 

Research 1st

Severe ME, POTS & MCAS.
Messages
768
I have no idea why in 2018 ME CFS patients and patient advocates, heroically still engage with the poison that is 'Social Media'. I'd stay well clear of such a thing due to its danger in this very volatile political situation where ME CFS sufferers are treated like sub humans. In other words, any appeal to authority who control the destiny of ME CFS sufferers is a waste of time. This was obvious back in 1988.

No other disabled group tolerates having to justify themselves by politely suggesting online someone engaging in disability shaming and possible hate crimes (media articles slamming ME CFS patients as inferior abnormal people) should not be so mean - pretty please with a cherry ontop.

It's actually really psychologically harmful to beg bullies not to harm you for decades knowing they never will stop. Total failure in obtaining your human rights is all that's achieved. Patients and advocates thus look weak. Never give a bully this power though, as it emboldens them further! They love it, it turns them on, arouses their sense of domination making you cower into submission.

On Social Media, when faced with reason and logic by a powerless minority, all powerful serial abusers do is claim further victimhood from those resisting abuse, in the hope someone will make an emotional outburst in text to them, thus giving them more ammunition for victimhood and ability to report them. This then allows for another media article full of lies and exaggeration. The process of action, reaction, action is thus perpetuated.

I'd ignore ignorant people in life entirely, and perhaps instead try somehow to prepare a written fact based dossier well away from prying eyes on how UK GMC registered NHS doctors (and colluding allied) staff have systematically used and abused you over the years including if they have caused secondary mental health issues such as suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, panic disorders, agoraphobia etc. As a bonus, you can use their social media posts that shame the ME CFS community against them, posts that breach GMC code of conduct but do it quietly. Don't advertise.

Then when it's completed over years of your hard work detailing your horrendous NHS treatment (mental, physical, sexual abuse in hospital admissions for example), you seek legal advice if you can sue for damages now you are finally believed, maybe in another decade once the American and European biomedical research makes unifying discoveries into a robust disease model no one can deny.

Conversely, by going tit for tat against Social Media sadistic cry babies (who intentionally antagonize vulnerable disabled people society doesn't care about) all you do is feed the trolls ego, trolls who are invincible whilst honest large scale Science lays dormant.

If diagnosed with ME CFS, resisting disability hate online that is politically sanctioned is like screaming into a hurricane. First, remove yourself from the storm zone before taking a deep breath, exhale out gently and regroup mentally.

Write down everything that has happened to you in your life, and only at the correct point in history, do you release it to show people what REALLY happened under the communist regime of ME CFS 'evidence based' medicine comprising of fraud based CBT GET and fraud based F48.0 Chronic Fatigue research that was knowingly used by NICE to misrepresent those with organic G93.3 ME CFS states.

Remember, UK ME CFS patients cannot donate blood, umbilical cord stem cells or bone marrow for a reason. They know damn well you don't need CBT GET and the use of inappropriate therapeutic intervention dreamed up by the disability shamers was simply to waste time, as with time, the original cohort of post infectious patients die out so can't claim compensation for a ruined life that PACE says is your fault.

A nice little trick, except this terrible lie now affects, potentially, tens of millions so we're dealing with mass murder. Thousands to tens of thousands will have died globally from ME (mostly from suicide) since ME PVFS was declared a harmless chronic fatigue syndrome in 1988 using fraud based Science - biospychosocial theory CFS that recommends CBT GET treating a presumed universal deconditioning arising from presumed fear avoidance causing and maintaining the symptoms of ME that aren't even symptoms of NICE based F48.0 Chronic Fatigue that NICE use as a research base for ME.

So yes, NICE have majorly commited a human rights violation in patients who have evidence of organic disease. Remove the evidence (via draconian NHS implementation in the UK of BPS CFS theory) and they presumed independent Scientists outside the UK wouldn't catch up before patients with organic ME die out. They were wrong.

Knowing this, when possible, remove yourself from Social Media medico political drama and avoid acute stress as much as possible. Even a few hours of upset will worsen an inflammatory response, never mind trying as a patient to correct those who are unevolved yet involved in keeping you sick.
 
Last edited:

FMMM1

Senior Member
Messages
513
The article is horrible! :bang-head: I always thought Reuters was an impartial news service . . . now if they get flak for it, it will be those darn activists acting up again! dang.

The article is horrible! :bang-head: I always thought Reuters was an impartial news service . . . now if they get flak for it, it will be those darn activists acting up again! dang.

Look at the headline "Science journal to withdraw chronic fatigue review amid patient activist complaints"

I assume that this is related to PACE. I'm a United Kingdom (UK) taxpayer and I resent the £5 million which was spent on PACE and which could have gone to research projects such as those OMF are working on.

I attended a talk by Professor James Coyne regarding PACE. The problem is not/was not the "patient activists"; the problem was the PACE research is flawed. They re-set the criteria for classification as "well" ("improved" or whatever) after the study concluded. The effect was that those joining the study with ME/CFS met the criteria for classification as "well". I.e. you didn't need graded exercise/CBT or whatever you just moved the goal posts. Neat piece of footwork. These "researchers" should be praised for scamming £5 million of public money and then blaming those who are ill with ME/CFS.

Currently OMF are trying to develop a Mass Spectrometry test to measure (elevated) intracellular levels of tryptophan. Here's a Raman spectroscopy test for intracellular phenylalanine; phenylalanine is also elevated in ME/CFS [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/an/c8an01437j#!divAbstract]; the test was developed in the UK. PACE "researchers" don't need to worry about Mass Spectrometry/Raman spectroscopy they just get £5 million for changing the assessment criteria so that those with ME/CFS are classified as well. Who was responsible for commissioning this project i.e. approving the spending of £5 million of public money?


Consider writing to your elected representative i.e. to request funding for ME/CFS research including the development of a diagnostic test.
I've written to the European Union Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) requesting that they lobby for funding for research into ME/CFS including the development of a diagnostic test [https://forums.phoenixrising.me/ind...ch-theyre-working-for-you.61516/#post-1003111].
Currently the ENVI Committee is lobbying for increased funding for research into Lyme disease and the development of a diagnostic test.
In 2016 the European Commission [European Union civil service] said [regarding Lyme disease] that "Both basic research and the development of new diagnostics, treatments and vaccines for Lyme borreliosis are funded by EU research and innovation framework programmes. The total EU contribution to such projects since 2007 amounts to EUR 33.9 million [US dollars]" [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2016-008631-ASW_EN.html].

ME/CFS received no funding from the European Union [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2017-006901-ASW_EN.html].