Dr David Tuller: The Lancet Publishes Whine de Coeur from Impassioned GET/CBT Defenders

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,122
Likes
26,745
Location
UK
This is a cracking post by David. Most enjoyable! :)


https://www.virology.ws/2022/02/14/...Oh7-R3wnfcpZQnto8Rx2KSzY5KpIGtNIqvg-1CYM79r1E

Trial By Error: The Lancet Publishes Whine de Coeur from Impassioned GET/CBT Defenders

14 February 2022 15 Comments

By David Tuller, DrPH

The Lancet
has just published an anguished whine de coeur from supporters of the graded exercise therapy/cognitive behavior therapy/ [GET/CBT] approach to ME/CFS. (Or CFS/ME, as these authors insist on calling the illness in what those familiar with the debate will recognize as a childish fit of pique.) These impassioned members of the GET/CBT ideological brigades, all from northern European countries, are metaphorically stomping their little feet over the new ME/CFS clinical guideline from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Per the new guideline, which was published in October, NICE no longer recommends GET and only advises CBT as supportive care—not as a treatment for the illness itself. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made a similar decision several years ago and removed from its site multiple references to the infamous PACE trial—a key plank of support for the GET/CBT approach. During NICE’s own extensive review process, it determined that the quality of the evidence to support the effectiveness of these interventions, including from the PACE trial, was either “very low” or merely “low.”
The five authors of this Lancet comment are (in order of authorship) Signe Flottorp, Kjetil Brurberg, Per Fink, Hans Knoop, and Vegard Wyller. Flottorp, Brurberg, and Wyller are all Norwegian; Fink is Danish, and Knoop is Dutch. All are well-known players in this field. Like their fellow GET/CBT brigadiers in the UK and elsewhere, they have made some dubious statements when it comes to ME/CFS. They really don’t like me.............
 
Messages
9,623
Likes
23,556
He is having a lot of fun with the ridiculous screeching of these dinosaurs now the Nice guidelines are out.
This is all so strange, and given my ignorance, I went forth to asks some questions about THE LANCET (as in why would they publish this crap?)...and without hiring my own Private Investigator, google generally generate some concerning issues worth further perusal.

Who Owns The Lancet?

The Lancet has been owned by Elsevier since 1991, and its editor-in-chief since 1995 is Richard Horton.

Under WHO FUNDS THE LANCET: google says-

The Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the SDG Era is supported by funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Who is Elsevier? Well online this was offered up: link to this parent company cannot be trusted.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...lsevier-are-corrupting-open-science-in-europe

***
Following the money, it would be interesting to find out more information on a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation connection....

the PACE trial issues show up in Wikipedia...The Lancet does have past controversy.

But to continue this false narrative regarding our illnesss and now the long haul COVID victims, well it criminal.
 
Messages
9,623
Likes
23,556
Under WHO FUNDS THE LANCET: google says-

The Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the SDG Era is supported by funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
this may be some Other Lancet- I can't quite figure that out and the Gates Foundation web site where you search didn't produce a result.
 

BrightCandle

Senior Member
Messages
644
Likes
2,348
this may be some Other Lancet- I can't quite figure that out and the Gates Foundation web site where you search didn't produce a result.
It does make me laugh when someone says that a fact checker at Facebook called out something in the British Medical Jounral or the Lancet as misinformation. Because on the one hand the idea that Facebook has the skills to assess a medical research paper or opinion is itself just funny and ridiculous its more so because they might very well be accidentally right because both have published some seriously terrible papers and do not have a process for ensuring any level of quality is maintained. As far as I can see the BMJ just allows doctors to post blogs and it gets pulled up into the general feed. Its not the journal that it comes in that makes it true, its the method of the actual study, the quality of its peer review and its replication elsewhere.
 

Revel

Senior Member
Messages
624
Likes
3,438
Did my eyes deceive me or were 29 references included at the end of this priceless Lancet piece? Is it usual to cite that many for a mere "Comment"?

Would have thought the references alone exceeded the normal wordage allowed for a "Comment", truly plumbing the depths of ignorance to back up their sorry argument.

How I wish David's Virology Blog rebuttal could be published in The Lancet as a "Comment" in the next edition!
 
Messages
9,623
Likes
23,556
or were 29 references included at the end of this priceless Lancet piece
I started glancing at the references and that alone seems to tell you exactly whats going on and whats wrong.

They only notice their own psych studies.

nobody else exists.

Hence I wonder how to get the Lancet to lose a bunch of money by allowing this crap to show up.