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

[Large Donner]

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.

The thing is in politics we are in an era wherby even when you know the truth and other people can see the BS you just keep taking the same position saying the same things, making it clear who is in charge of policy and that you cannot manouver them out.

The fiasco with WMD in Iraq is evidence of this. If you admit your evidence is wrong you lose and have to change policy. If you dont admit "it" even though everyone else can see it you are just hitting the ball back over the net to the opponents who simply are not in the control positions to oust you.

Therefore the status quo remains. This is how things work in North Korea and China, this is why teachers rarely strike these day despite schools being underfunded etc. They are simply disempowered and defeated.

The truth is evident does not mean the truth will form policy otherwise we wouldn't have crap in our food, multiple theatre wars, courrupt big pharma and child abuse rings at the top of governments being whitewashed.

The establishment do not sack themselves and the likes of Sharpe and co cannot even be voted out eventually by a disillusioned electorate. Thats evident by the fact they have served continuously for decades.

They serve the left and the right and the private corporations by controlling the bottom line. They do not come and go at elections they are basically the continuation of government.

 

[Lucibee]

Just to let you know, I've had a letter accepted on this. TLID (The Lancet Infectious Diseases) seem to be keen to rush it through. I'm not sure yet whether I'm being fed to the lions or they really are up for a genuine debate.

Has anyone had anything accepted about GETSET yet?

 

[ScottTriGuy]

Just to let you know, I've had a letter accepted on this. TLID (The Lancet Infectious Diseases) seem to be keen to rush it through. I'm not sure yet whether I'm being fed to the lions or they really are up for a genuine debate.

Has anyone had anything accepted about GETSET yet?

Congrats, good for you.

Can you share your letter? Thanks.

 

[Lucibee]

Can you share your letter? Thanks.

I will when I get a link.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I will when I get a link.

Good for you @Lucibee.
I was thinking of making a complaint about the gratuitous comment re-ME/CFS but was not sure whether it would be constructive. I am ready to weigh in later if things heat up.

 

[Lucibee]

I don't think it was gratuitous. The editorial itself didn't make sense by concentrating just on DAAs in HCV. After all, what 'cherished preconceptions' could possibly be challenged by a Cochrane review that could ultimately lead to life-saving drugs being withdrawn for 'not being effective enough'? And why are TLID even asking that question if they already agree with the IDSA/AASLD? It's clearly a vehicle. It may be a trap. If so, I've fallen right in!

 

[Cheshire]

I don't think it was gratuitous. The editorial itself didn't make sense by concentrating just on DAAs in HCV. After all, what 'cherished preconceptions' could possibly be challenged by a Cochrane review that could ultimately lead to life-saving drugs being withdrawn for 'not being effective enough'? And why are TLID even asking that question if they already agree with the IDSA/AASLD? It's clearly a vehicle. It may be a trap. If so, I've fallen right in!

I'm sorry, I don't get it completely. What kind of trap do you think they have settled?

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I don't think it was gratuitous. The editorial itself didn't make sense by concentrating just on DAAs in HCV. After all, what 'cherished preconceptions' could possibly be challenged by a Cochrane review that could ultimately lead to life-saving drugs being withdrawn for 'not being effective enough'? And why are TLID even asking that question if they already agree with the IDSA/AASLD? It's clearly a vehicle. It may be a trap. If so, I've fallen right in!

By gratuitous I mean taking the opportunity to make an unjustified snide remark. Is it not that?

 

[Esther12]

By gratuitous I mean taking the opportunity to make an unjustified snide remark. Is it not that?

I could be wrong, but I think I agree with Lucibee that it looks like they manufactured an opportunity to make an unjustified snide remark.

 

[Lucibee]

Ah - I took gratuitous to mean 'done without good reason'. That the editorial doesn't really stand alone if you remove the paragraph on PACE, tells you all you need to know.

Or not. I'm trying to work out whether TLID want to discuss PACE because they realise what is actually going on (and are trying to do so covertly), or because Sharpe gave them a prod and their agenda lies in another direction (hence, trap, lions, etc).

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Ah - I took gratuitous to mean 'done without good reason'. That the editorial doesn't really stand alone if you remove the paragraph on PACE, tells you all you need to know.

Or not. I'm trying to work out whether TLID want to discuss PACE because they realise what is actually going on (and are trying to do so covertly), or because Sharpe gave them a prod and their agenda lies in another direction (hence, trap, lions, etc).

I doubt there is a trap. Even if it is a conspiracy it is almost certainly a cocked up conspiracy.

I guess you and Esther are right that what I should have realised is that the whole piece is gratuitous - in the sense of maliciously unnecessary.

 

[Lucibee]

Sorry if that seems cryptic - but I'll explain more once this plays out.

Ha! Yes. There are no conspiracies, just incompetencies. But both sides see conspiracies on the other side. I don't think it's malicious; more misunderstanding. Which is why I wish they'd actually talk to some pwME.

 

[Barry53]

Congrats, good for you.

Can you share your letter? Thanks.

Not sure if sharing is the right thing to do at this point; others will know better. Would sharing constitute a form of prior publication, and then invalidate the rule that it should not have been published elsewhere?

 

[Barry53]

Has anyone had anything accepted about GETSET yet?

Still waiting.

 

[Lucibee]

Not sure if sharing is the right thing to do at this point; others will know better. Would sharing constitute a form of prior publication, and then invalidate the rule that it should not have been published elsewhere?

Once it's been accepted (which it has), it's fine. But I'm going to wait anyway.

The issue about prior publication is more about the journal stepping on the toes of another publisher when they claim copyright of an article. In the case of comment, I guess they will want to ensure that I don't say something different elsewhere, and give false account of what was said (particularly as it will have been edited). But people change their minds in debates, so I'm not sure how relevant that is here.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, this is the first time that a Lancet journal has acknowledged that calls for retraction have been made regarding PACE. So I've tried to make sure that those calls have at least been referenced (David Tuller's open letter, Invest in ME's letter, #MEAction petition), even if they haven't responded as such.

The thing that makes me twitchy is that *they* asked *me* to comment, and I don't really know why I was singled out. As a previous Lancet employee, it makes me uncomfortable. It's probably because they're just short of copy...

 

[Barry53]

The thing that makes me twitchy is that *they* asked *me* to comment, and I don't really know why I was singled out. As a previous Lancet employee, it makes me uncomfortable. It's probably because they're just short of copy...

This is not any attempt at answering your comment (I don't have an answer), but a follow-on comment.

It has occurred to me there may well be quite a number of Lancet staff who themselves struggle to understand all the ins and outs of PACE etc, or who are too busy with other stuff to get to grips with it ... or to even care. Would it make any difference if some of them did better understand the issues? If so, what sort of contributions might assist in that? Or is that a non-starter?

 

[Lucibee]

It would definitely make a difference. But I don't know how one would go about that. The need for The Lancet to remain 'impartial' means that resistance to influence leads to not hearing whole sides of the debate - and that's a problem.

 

[Barry53]

It would definitely make a difference. But I don't know how one would go about that. The need for The Lancet to remain 'impartial' means that resistance to influence leads to not hearing whole sides of the debate - and that's a problem.

But what if Lancet staff developed sufficient understanding to realise that the Lancet's editorial standpoint is of dubious impartiality.

 

[Lucibee]

But how do you do that when they won't listen to one side for fear of being 'influenced'?

 

[Woolie]

Not sure if sharing is the right thing to do at this point; others will know better. Would sharing constitute a form of prior publication, and then invalidate the rule that it should not have been published elsewhere?

No. Everyone is free to circulate author copies of their manuscript while its under review. As long as it is not being actively considered for publication in another journal.

No circulating preprints does not count as a form of prepublication.