Just thought I'd mention that some CMRC members also contribute to the Mental Elf blog.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/me-association-to-leave-the-cmrc
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/me-association-to-leave-the-cmrc
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.
Kjetil G. Brurberg
12 hours
I was invited by the Journal of Health Psychology to comment on their ongoing PACE debate. Realizing that some people might view my role in a Cochrane review based on individual patient data as a potential conflict of interest (COI), I consulted the editor on these issues before accepting the invitation. Shortly thereafter, the editor confirmed that he did not see my potential COI a big problem, and that he still wanted me to write the commentary article. The same COI, however, suddenly became a major issue when I submitted the commentary and my opinions were made known. What happened?
Dr Geraghty seems to operate with a dynamic definition of bias implying that other rules apply to people who share his views. The observation that most JHP commentators agree with the points raised in his PACE-GATE publication is as expected when taking into account that all authors who have been supportive to the PACE-trials have been collectively refused.
This is interesting, perhaps you'd like to show the clear similarities in a bit more detail?
As the distance increases, it becomes increasingly impossible to have a full overview of peoples’ social life during the last decade
I did not know that one of the suggested reviewers had been sitting next to one of the PACE-authors at a conference dinner
I agree, but this creates a moral hazard, financial fraud is prosecuted but medical fraud is not pursued becasue proving it is hard so we don't try.Fraud has to be proved, even if its strongly suspected. Pseudoscience is more easily demonstrable.
Its fraud to steal money through false pretenses but not fraud to write a fraudulent medical paper upon which medical treatment will be based? If medical ethics had teeth (and consequences) then fraud could be proven, in this case the judiciary could be used to set precedent, as i understand it they lied to their patients about risks, knowingly exposed them to treatment that could harm them (but as long as they don't believe it its somehow ethical?) then doctored their results in plain sight. This is fraud.To prove fraud you need a whistleblower or documented evidence that will stand up in court. Most cases of scientific fraud, even when people are indirectly harmed, have no legal consequences. The consequences tend to be social.
Someone once said only the rich have the protection of the law...To take people to court over alleged harm from fraud requires direct and documented harms. Its really hard to do, and it could be expected that the person taking it to court might have to pay costs on a failed case.
I agree but this is not good enoughPseudoscientific movements operate via social and political means. Identifying something as pseudoscience also does not require proving intent or harms.
In theory your correct, in this case the journal seems to believe the lies so they are protecting the lies and facing no consequences for doing so.Scientific fraud, as opposed to criminal fraud, is easier to prove. It also has no legal consequences in most cases, though anyone who paid for the research might have a civil case. The usual consequences are social ... loss of prestige, inability to publish or get grants, and for doctors it can include the loss of their medical licence.
In the UK, as is the case in a few other countries including Australia, doctors are immune under law from a wide range of civil prosecutions.the law is protecting them
In the UK, as is the case in a few other countries including Australia, doctors are immune under law from a wide range of civil prosecutions.
Some years ago laws were passed in a number of countries that limit liability from doctors. Even if you take them to court, unless those laws have been repealed you have limited options. In Australia these laws take the form of limiting what doctors can be sued for, and how much. Its very limited. I think the UK had even more extensive protections than here. All this happened most of a decade ago. Someone would need to check the specifics of such laws for the UK unless they have been repealed.My understanding is that in the UK, not all doctors are covered by the NHS indemnity scheme - specifically GPs are not.
For those that are, you can still take action, but it will be defended against and funded not by the doctors medical insurance, but the NHS trust they are employed by.
However, in the climate around the UK medical establishment, lots of 'experts' on GET/CBT lack of harm will be trotted out which you would have to fight, making it a considerably more difficult option.
I have difficulty understanding why the so called caring profession(s) target ME as they do, and why others facilitate them.
Some years ago laws were passed in a number of countries that limit liability from doctors. Even if you take them to court, unless those laws have been repealed you have limited options. In Australia these laws take the form of limiting what doctors can be sued for, and how much. Its very limited. I think the UK had even more extensive protections than here. All this happened most of a decade ago. Someone would need to check the specifics of such laws for the UK unless they have been repealed.
This goes back about a decade. In Australia there was a crisis where the insurance costs were so high they risked going out of business. Hmmm, I think it was our Prime Minister Howard ... which means more than a decade ago. So the maximum payouts were capped on legal claims. I will try to find a source. I was concerned at the time that similar schemes were underway in a number of countries, including the UK. This only applies to non-criminal negligence so far as I am aware. It will not stop someone suing a doctor, but limits the allowed claims in a suit.I have never heard of such protections. Can you give a source?
The list of pharmaceutical companies successfully prosecuted for fraud and patient harm (including death) is very, very long. How is PACE any different - aside from having disability insurers and government agencies as protectors?