Horton v. Hickie

[Sean]

Funny old world.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3429115.htm

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/15/ian-hickie-responds-to-critics/

 

[alex3619]

Hi Sean, from the first link:

"JOHN MENDOZA: Ian is very mindful of these things. I mean you don't get asked to write pieces for The Lancet unless you have a high standing in terms of your scientific rigor and approach."

From the second link:

"Some feel that Horton is simply dragging The Lancet into the 21st century. Others feel that he has clearly thrown the academic baby out with the bathwater! To me The Lancets behaviour is considerably more commercial. In academe, as elsewhere, old-world publishers are rapidly losing the battle to free, online and open media outlets. Elsevier, the publishing house that produces The Lancet, is currently the subject of a worldwide boycott by some academics who are seeking a more open and transparent approach to the publication of science.

In my view, The Lancet, through the agency of Hortons devotion to new media, is desperate to attract wider public attention before it goes out of business. "

The first comment made me chuckle. Anyone read the PACE study? I am not even sure I consider it valid science, there are so many glaring errors that have been ignored, as I and many others have discussed elsewhere.

As far as the Lancet is concerned, the public wants to know about science. Hiding things behind a paywall or otherwise restricting access is the old way of doing things. Open access is, I hope, the way forward for public debate in science. Online publication is much faster: it enhances education of future scientists, the public debate, and more imporantantly the rapid response from the scientific community.

Bye, Alex

 

[Esther12]

Thanks for posting that Sean.

 

[merylg]

Thanks Sean. I found the comments (second link) interesting too.

 

[biophile]

Does this make Hickie a "conspiracy theorist"?

Anyway, funniest quote in the first article (from John Mendoza):

"I mean you don't get asked to write pieces for The Lancet unless you have a high standing in terms of your scientific rigor and approach."

alex3619 wrote: The first comment made me chuckle. Anyone read the PACE study? I am not even sure I consider it valid science, there are so many glaring errors that have been ignored, as I and many others have discussed elsewhere.

Don't forget the erroneous and sloppy editorial by Bleijenberg & Knoop which they were asked to write!

 

[Sean]

Don't forget the erroneous and sloppy editorial by Bleijenberg & Knoop which they were asked to write!

And which still has not been corrected...?

 

[Megan]

Thanks Sean. I'm just releived it doesn't involve CFS!

 

[Snow Leopard]

I wonder if Dr Hickie is receiving threatening emails?

 

[Dolphin]

Just read another one:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/31252
and find it's already being discussed.

---

As some posters have probably thought, but not explicitly said (so others might not know), Richard Horton made outspoken comments about the PACE Trial and people criticising it, both on Australian radio and also in the editorial (presuming he wrote it).

The journal published eight letters and then the editorial criticised the letter writers (amongst others) http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60696-X. I thought this was odd behaviour for a medical journal: if they didn't think the letters were good, is it responsible to publish them?

---

If Richard Horton was forced to resign, it probably wouldn't be the worst thing for the ME/CFS patient community.

 

[ixchelkali]

Gee, it seems that campaigns of attack from extremists is the problem du jour for some psychiatrists, especially those who are working to expand the purview of psychiatry. Or maybe there's an outbreak of paranoia in the field, a kind of mass hysteria.

 

[SOC]

Gee, it seems that campaigns of attack from extremists is the problem du jour for some psychiatrists, especially those who are working to expand the purview of psychiatry. Or maybe there's an outbreak of paranoia in the field, a kind of mass hysteria.

Almost certainly so! One of the most disabled patient populations on the planet is out to get them and they need to consult the police for protection? Sounds like paranoia is running rampant in some segments of the psychiatry profession at least. Then they start talking to each other and the hysteria spreads as we see.

 

[Snow Leopard]

The language used in the article is actually quite modest. There is a little bit of cherry picking in the summary (typical), but the rest is OK.

Conclusions

Melatonin analogues provide a new and efficacious mechanism for producing notable phase shifts in human beings. Although these drugs have been mainly studied for sleep disorders, they also have the potential to be used as primary or adjunctive drugs across a wider range of neuropsychiatric disorders characterised by persistent circadian disturbance. Importantly, only agomelatine (which also binds 5-HT2C receptors) has been reported to have clinically significant antidepressant effects. Because of its favourable adverse effect and safety profile, and the potential to help to restore circadian function between depressive episodes, this drug might occupy a unique place in the management of some patients with severe depression and other major mood disorders.

Sounds reasonable. Perhaps the conclusion should have asked for exploration of this class of drugs in general, rather than just a focus on agomelatine.

 

[Sean]

If Richard Horton was forced to resign, it probably wouldn't be the worst thing for the ME/CFS patient community.

Or maybe there's an outbreak of paranoia in the field, a kind of mass hysteria.

I suspect The Lancet will have a new chief editor within a year.