Quick Thoughts

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.

When Simon Wessely shoved a Hans Eysenck scandal under the rug

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 […]

My response to an invitation to improve the Cochrane Collaboration by challenging its policies

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 […]

Update: PLOS One affirms my (and anyone else’s) right to PACE data published there

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 […]

An open letter to the Cochrane Collaboration: Bill Silverman lies a-moldering in his grave

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 […]

As major medical journals balk, BMJ moves forward with routine data sharing.

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 […]

A call for the unconditional release of the PLOS One PACE data Part 1

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 […]

Serious errors in Stephen Lewandowsky’s paper in PLOS One

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 […]

Recognizing when “protecting patient privacy” is mere excuse for not sharing data

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 […]

Why I don’t know how PLOS will respond to authors’ refusal to release data

The simple answer is that I am not involved in the decision-making process and it is a bit opaque to me.

Formal request to PLOS One to issue an Expression of Concern for PACE cost-effectiveness study

  Kudos to Dutch research biologist Klaas van Dijk. for his letter to PLOS One: Dear Editors of PLOS One, Attached is a formal letter from King’s College in London (UK) in which it is stated that King’s College in London is unwilling to release to Professor James Coyne (in cc) the primary research data of http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040808 Such […]

No Dissing! NHS Choices Behind the Headlines needs to repair relationship with its readers

A knight in tarnished amour Although by no means perfectly dependable, the NHS Choices Behind the Headlines is generally a useful resource for lay and professional consumers bombarded by distorted coverage of science and health information in the media. I cheered the headline and NHS Choices Behind the Headlines’ coverage  of a PLOS Medicine article […]