Can mental health professionals distinguish between washed and unwashed brains? The case of Patty Hearst revisited
Decades ago, mental health professionals testified that Patty Hearst had been brainwashed and should not be held responsible for her actions. In 2017, we can recognize this was junk science. But what if neuroscientists made claimed that brain scans could distinguish between washed and unwashed brains?
Clinical psychologists’ divided loyalties in providing psychotherapy to clients who feel coerced to participate
A coalition of professional and consumer organizations express concerns about dual loyalties of therapists treating clients who feel coerced to be in therapy.
Updated May 7, 2016 I have also now responded to Sir Simon Wessely ‘s comment on Twitter about this post. I invite a further reply from him. Soon there may be a renewed call for an investigation of misconduct by famous UK psychologist Hans Eysenck. What happened the last time reflects on the ability of […]
I interpret a recent Cochrane Community Blog post as inviting me to continue criticizing the Collaboration’s conflict of interest in the evaluation of “chronic fatigue syndrome” with the intent of initiating further reflection on its practices and change. Cochrane needs to Clean up conflicts of interest in its systematic reviews. Issue a Statement of Concern […]
A prominent notice has appeared on the PLOS One article McCrone P, Sharpe M, Chalder T, Knapp M, Johnson AL, et al. (2012) Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. PLOS ONE 7(8): e40808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040808 PLOS ONE notice: Update on follow up Posted […]
To whom it may concern: I’m writing to ask you to consider the implications of having authors conduct a systematic review with the Cochrane collaboration brand attached who have ties to an industry which would benefit from particular conclusions. These same conclusions would personally enrich some of the authors professionally and personally. Larun L, Odgaard-Jensen […]
Repeated signals that The BMJ is moving forward while editors of other key medical journals try to undermine data sharing. Institutions are stiffening their resistance to release of the promised PACE trial data from the PLOS One article. This threatens to splinter the movement for routine data sharing. But The BMJ continues to support for […]
We are at a tipping point in the struggle for routine data-sharing. We look to journals to implement policies based on a consensus of directives from governments, requirements of funding bodies, and, now, The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). But we should not confuse circulation of an ICMJE proposal with universal adoption of […]
Lewandowsky and colleagues published a paper in PLOS One with glaring errors. They refused to post a correction. One was posted by PLOS One. Comment left at my blog post, Further insights into war against data sharing: Science Media Centre’s letter writing campaign to UK Parliament: Lewandowsky’s modus operandi, played out previously over the period 2010-2013 […]
In bringing up “protecting patient privacy” in refusing to release the PACE trial data published in PLOS One, King’s College, London is doing the Shuck ‘N’ Jive. As covered in a recent blog post, King’s College London issued a press release reiterating their refusal to release the PACE PLOS One data. A close read of […]
- Page 1 of 2