James Coyne: Should authors declare a conflict of interest...

[trishrhymes]

@Keith Geraghty and @Tom Kindlon you are mega stars.

Conflict of interest declaration - I'm a koala.

 

[Hutan]

Conflict of interest declaration - I'm a koala.

Biology is not destiny @trishrhymes.

If only you got into a proper sleep pattern instead of sleeping the day away up a tree. And ate balanced meals, instead of those drug-laced leaves. Then a bit of positive thinking and you too could become a productive member of society.

May I recommend:

this feelgood rhyming story portraying a positive message about facing up to change.....
make this a story to shout about - it will make you laugh, cry and read it every bedtime. .

https://beaufortstreetbooks.com.au/p/picture-books-koala-who-could--4?barcode=9781408331637

 

[sarah darwins]

Not for the first time with these jokers, WTF? Do they even understand what "conflict of interest" means? Seriously, this is Trump-worthy.

Their logic seems to be that anyone who might have been on the receiving end of their bullshit 'treatment' is bound to be prejudiced against it ... um, have they thought this through?

 

[Marky90]

They`re acting like brats. Seems they are concerned about public opinion, now that our voices more frequently are getting publicity. It`s just so hypocritical coming from them. A conflict of interest is the very fact that they earn all their living on trying to prove their view on pathogenesis.

 

[RogerBlack]

What would the illness be conflicting with?

"All patients who do not agree that CBT/GET is an effective treatment are members of a secret society to promote this view."

It seems like this is damn close to their actual position.

 

[alex3619]

So two official or unofficial complaints thus far directly to my University

Isn't this the kind of thing that is the basis for the claim that patients have an organized group indulging in vexatious behaviour toward the PACE authors? To clarify, are they not doing what they complain patients are doing? Making vexatious complaints?

They are not running a scientific process, but a political one. Persuasive rhetoric, rather than reason and objective evidence, are their main tools.

It is not clear that we can prove beyond all doubt that their efforts have resulted in widespread harm. There is good evidence, and we encounter examples frequently even in our own lives, but this is not the kind of proof required in a scientific commentary. However their frequently cavalier treatment of evidence, especially contrary evidence, plus the cavalier attitude toward sound reasoning and sound statistical analysis, make their complaint potentially hypocritical.

A case in point - after failing to refute the null hypothesis in the long term follow up paper they described it as improvement was maintained. They should have titled it something like "PACE trial fails to refute null hypothesis, CBT/GET does not help CF patients."

 

[Luther Blissett]

I'm glad i'm not the only one baffled about the 'conflict' of interest, I thought I was having one of those moments where I can't see what is in front of my face.

I can declare my conflicts of Interest here: I'm white, male, a Christian, I like ice cream and movies, I sufffered from headaches and nosebleeds as a kid, sometimes I got the flu....many things happened to me in life, should I list them all?

@Keith Geraghty No underground mountain lair? Swishing a black hooded robe about? Cackling manically? Timers that count down in RED numbers? Pineapple on pizzas? Looked at a puppy in a funny way recently? We need to know what kind of monster you are...

 

[Kati]

@Keith Geraghty i hope you have good support at your university and indeed it is a nasty form of bullying. I believe Jonathan Kerr was subject to it too. Do not hesitate to speak out if appropriate should you need support.

 

[Kati]

This:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879491756341035009

 

[TiredSam]

I want to know the answer to this. I am baffled.

If @Keith Geraghty is an M.E. sufferer then it can be taken as proven that he's prone to false beliefs. This affects the reliability of his paper, so readers have the right to be informed about it.

I happen to think that authors should always declare any illnesses - for example if an author has ever suffered from depression this should also be declared, as it will enable readers to make an informed judgement of a paper where the author seems to have taken a rather gloomy view of things.

Judging scientific papers with reference to the medical records of the author rather than the contents of the article or, heaven forfend, the facts, is entirely consistent with the BPS view of things. That the PACE authors at the same time complain of ad hominem attacks has just broken my irony meter, but it was a delusional piece of equipment anyway so I'm going back to subjective questionnaires.

Hope that clarifies matters.

Conflicts of Interest
TiredSam suffers from grumpiness and has expressed incredulity at GETSET Julie's lifestyle.

 

[Sean]

I declare my conflict of interest to be a burning hatred and complete intolerance of incompetent, fraudulent, and malicious pseudo-science.

I declare my righteous intent to be the removal, by any available legal means, of all practitioners, supporters, enablers, clients, or other beneficiaries of the aforementioned pseudo-science from any position of authority, influence, or profit derived from that pseudo-science, and to then further hold them to appropriate legal and moral account for the effect of their actions upon others.

So sue me.

 

[Sean]

In the methodology section of the PACE trial paper.

First stop in reading a science paper should always be the methodology section.

Conflict of interest declaration - I'm a koala.

In Dorset. Which is pretty rad for a koala.

 

[alex3619]

Do medical false illness beliefs count? Like BPS researcher's unproven assertions about the nature of many diseases including ME and CFS? Those would have to be false illness beliefs, and a clear case of bias that needs reporting. Are they planning to do that too?

Treating their ideas as unproven hypotheses, and objectively assessing the evidence is one thing. What is documented is something else.

 

[Woolie]

It is not clear that we can prove beyond all doubt that their efforts have resulted in widespread harm. There is good evidence, and we encounter examples frequently even in our own lives, but this is not the kind of proof required in a scientific commentary. However their frequently cavalier treatment of evidence, especially contrary evidence, plus the cavalier attitude toward sound reasoning and sound statistical analysis, make their complaint potentially hypocritical.

Quite so, @alex3619. Whether or not you think this particular statement of the editorial is supported by enough evidence, that's not really the point. The PACE authors have made claims that are way more sweeping and unsubstantiated than this, and never thought fit to correct them.

 

[Keith Geraghty]

I wish everyone - mostly the PACE authors - remember that I wrote an Editorial first, as Wesssely has done many a time. An Editorial is a commentary of opinion supported by some facts, not a scientific paper presenting data.

Editorials are short, invited opinion pieces that discuss an issue of immediate importance to the translational research community. Editorials should have fewer than 1000 words total, no abstract, a minimal number of references (definitely no more than 5), and no figures or tables (although they do have a photograph of the author as an illustration).

http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/i...ial-focus-perspective-and-commentary-articles

 

[Woolie]

I wish everyone - mostly the PACE authors - remember that I wrote an Editorial first, as Wesssely has done many a time. An Editorial is a commentary of opinion supported by some facts, not a scientific paper presenting data.

Editorials are short, invited opinion pieces that discuss an issue of immediate importance to the translational research community. Editorials should have fewer than 1000 words total, no abstract, a minimal number of references (definitely no more than 5), and no figures or tables (although they do have a photograph of the author as an illustration).

http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/i...ial-focus-perspective-and-commentary-articles

Yea, that's an important point, @Keith Geraghty. What I wanted to say is that we're all behind you, we're all equally outraged by the sheer hypocrisy of this!

 

[AndyPR]

Although it may not seem like something to celebrate, particularly for those like Keith directly affected, but I think that if the PACE authors are resorting to this kind of bullying tactic in order to deal with their critics then they must be really rattled.

Thank you @Keith Geraghty and everyone else who are attempting to shine a light on these pseudoscientists and their psychobabble.

Conflict of interests; I'm male, overweight, balding, previously practiced martial arts and own a cat.

 

[Snow Leopard]

I can declare my conflicts of Interest here: I'm white, male, a Christian, I like ice cream and movies, I sufffered from headaches and nosebleeds as a kid, sometimes I got the flu....many things happened to me in life, should I list them all?

Are you under mind control by a cat?

 

[Woolie]

Conflict of interests; I'm male, overweight, balding, previously practiced martial arts and own a cat.

And have an unfathomable passion for Kiefer Sutherland

 

[AndyPR]

And have an unfathomable passion for Kiefer Sutherland

Not me, the ladies from the Blue Ribbon voting thread a while back had the passion for him, I just don't dare disappoint them now..