Cochrane Crisis:  How close to industry is too close?
Crisis en Cochrane: ¿Cuánto es "demasiado" en la cercanía a las industrias?
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3966

 

El jue., 20 sept. 2018 a las 10:56, Juan Gérvas (<[log in to unmask]>) escribió:

-because the thecnical organization of this list i cannot send attached the

 

Gøtzsche,comments on: Statement from the Cochrane Governing Board

 

-you can ask me directly ([log in to unmask])

-plus, the Spanish translation of Ray (Moynihan), post about the Cochrane Crisis (with a commentary by the translator, a male nutritionist member of NoGracias):  Paremos las llamas y la sangre en la Cochrane: hay demasiado en juego.http://www.nogracias.eu/2018/09/19/paremos-las-llamas-la-sangre-la-cochrane-demasiado-juego-ray-moynihan/

-un saludo juan gérvas @JuanGrvas

 

El jue., 20 sept. 2018 a las 2:57, Kumara Mendis (<[log in to unmask]>) escribió:

Juan

 

Good morning and thank you again for sharing the information.

 

1) 

The proposal from Tom Jefferson is excellent. Cannot think of anything better.

If Cochrane Collaboration needs to be highly trustable and respected I think its the best thing to do -WILL THEY DO IT?

I will pray that God Helps them (I am an old school believer of a God - no evidence but we do not have any evidence to everything on earthe!)

 

2)

I am beginning to trust the high level applied statistics such as meta-analysis, network meta-analysis....and a similar process.

Given the same dataset to two groups they will exactly show what they want with these processes - how many examples do we have? we can even do a systematic review of the disagreements on the same data set :-)

One of the people I still respect is John Ionnidis (may be because I assume he is telling truth...but cannot understand the stats behind) 

However to ending scientific debates the process has to be transparent and understandable to all people with without a specific knowledge of statistics.

 

So I will pray that Tom Jefferson's proposal will be accepted (may be with some modifications?)

🙂

 

KM

-- 

Truth, wisdom, learning, and good sense—these are worth paying for, but too valuable for you to sell.

Proverbs 23:23

 

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:59 PM Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

-Kumara, i only try to share the information so you can know about the problem

-two pieces more (the second paper is important for this list, in my opinion):

A/

Crisis en la Cochrane. Propuestas de Tom Jefferson. Renovación de cargos, y de procesos.
Cochrane Crisis. Tom Jefferson proposals:
1. Get everyone to step down and step away from the Board, Brother Peter included.
2. Suspend all legal and disciplinary actions currently underway.
3. Nominate a caretaker 3-month Board made up of people who were not in the fight and have not taken sides, including those who spoke at the AGM.
4. Hold elections for a brand new Board with members of the current dispute asked not to run for office.
5. Hold the elections under the auspices of a neutral body such as the Election Commission.
6. Start afresh from a webinar-based extraordinary meeting, if necessary over two days, giving any member the chance to input into policy making. Because of Charity Commission rules, this cannot take place instead of an AGM.

I hereby solemnly declare my undertaking not to run for any position in Cochrane for the next 50 years, only for the one I currently hold: author. So help me God.

https://blog.tripdatabase.com/2018/09/19/a-post-from-tom-jefferson/

B/

Cochrane crisis.
Its policy on conflict of interests
John Ionnidis: "In controversial cases, rival researchers should set up a meta-analysis together".
Meta-analyses were supposed to end scientific debates. Often, they only cause more controversy.
Crisis en la Cochrane.
Su política sobre sesgos y conflictos de interés.
Los meta-análisis añaden con frecuencia más controversia. En casos controvertidos, los discrepantes deberían hacer uno nuevo juntos  (John Ioannidis).
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/meta-analyses-were-supposed-end-scientific-debates-often-they-only-cause-more

-un saludo juan gérvas @JuanGrvas

 

 

El mié., 19 sept. 2018 a las 3:02, Kumara Mendis (<[log in to unmask]>) escribió:

Juan thanks again for sending this excellent summary for people like me with poor time management but wanting to know the truth about what’s happening. 

I will send this to our undergrads and post grad trainees.

 

‘But we need a Cochane without business, neither links to industry and corporations’

It’s like my favourite song by John Lenon

Imagine - there’s no heaven, no countries, all the people living....

We can and must dream....but will it ever happen?

Cochrane Collaboration is another business organisation in this world.....

 

All we can do is to be watchful of any evidence for own own sake and our patients....

 

KM 

 

 

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 2:34 am, Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

-i have great experience of surviving to lynching in Twitter without losing my calm

-new knolewdge is usually choking as for example, voluntary abortion at home (with appropiate medication under prescription of primary care workers)

-but coming back to the topic;

After the #CochranceForAll colloquium...business as usual.
But we need a Cochane without business, neither links to industry and corporations (private/public)
https://davidhealy.org/cochrane-cock-up/

-un saludo juan gérvas @JuanGrvas

 

El mar., 18 sept. 2018 a las 21:24, McCormack, James (<[log in to unmask]>) escribió:

Hi Vasiliy: Thanks for your comments - none of this has to do with whistle-blowers and respecting their courage etc. In fact I am not in anyway, shape or form suggesting quietness - I have spent my entire career NOT being silent and trying my best to disseminate far and wide balanced synopses of the best available evidence.

 

I am also NOT saying that drug companies/governments etc should NOT be called out for their inappropriate actions -of course they should but we should focus strictly on the evidence for those violations and not be so verbally aggressive.

 

My point was that I see too many people on the "against the drug companies, against the regulators, against the specialists” side using terminology and fear mongering that they would have found reprehensible if it was on the other side. For instance, I know I struggle when I hearing marketing such as "we are fighting the war against heart disease” or “the war against the silent killer” etc. I also know there are very many, very good people working very hard and very honestly in the FDA, the drug companies etc.

 

I guess my issue is with the dare I say hypocrisy of the tone of the message - and at least for me it actually dilutes the message rather than strengthens it because the aggression makes me wonder if a person's judgement has been clouded. 

 

But I am also not naive enough to know this sort of aggressive language can be somewhat effective for both sides - look at what goes on everyday in US politics - I just think as academics we should rise above that as much as possible - and I‘m not saying I haven’t fallen into that sort of hypocrisy at times as well. 

 

Personally, I believe we can be very effective by not attacking - in the weekly medical podcast I do called the Best Science Medicine podcast, Mike Allan (my cohost) and I have an unwritten policy that we don’t attack issues or people but rather try to explain the issues and the evidence and poke fun at ourselves and others along the way - our podcast has become one of the most popular medical podcasts worldwide with 10,000s of listeners every week. I think part of the success is our attitude.

 

Finally, I think if we are in general polite (as much as possible) more people will listen to the important messages we all have. Most importantly it gives us more time and energy to debate the issues rather than debate the antics.

 

 

James

 

 

On Sep 17, 2018, at 12:29 PM, Vasiliy Vlassov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

With all due respect

to the call for the quietness and politeness, I remind that usually and probably only passionate people act against the misconduct and/or immoral behaviors. The silent/polite majority all the times enjoy the fruits of the actions of whistle blowers et al. Academic people have to educate their self about the hard price paid by the whistle blowers in academic world. It is enough to protect such people and respect their courage, even if they disturb the dead silence of the lab.

VVV

 

On 2018-09-17 17:48, Bill Cayley, Jr wrote:

I appreciate Jim McCormack's thoughts... Evidence based medicine needs to be about discussion of the EVIDENCE. Clearly personal feeling and perspectives come into play in ANY interpretation of information (scientific evidence included) but for the good of all we need to aim for clear, transparent, and (hopefully) dispassionate discussion of the merits of evidence...

 

Tx

 

 

Bill Cayley, Jr, MD MDiv  

[log in to unmask]

[log in to unmask]

http://twitter.com/bcayley

Work: 715.286.2270

Pager: 715.838.7940

Mobile: 715.828.4636

 

A cheerful heart is good medicine...  (Proverbs 17:22)

 

-- 

\/.\/.\/.

Vasiliy V. Vlassov, MD

President, Society for Evidence Based Medicine, osdm.org

Professor, National Research University Higher School of Economics

e-mail: vlassov[a t]cochrane.ru

Web page https://www.hse.ru/en/org/persons/14527416

snail mail: P.O.Box 13 Moscow 109451 Russia

Phone Russia +7(965)2511021

 

---

To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1

 

 

---

To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1

 

---

To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1