And I’m one of them.

This is important not least because of claims appearing over the weekend that Cochrane pulled its controversial review due to pressure from brain-addled trouble-making “patient activitists,” rather than for scientific reasons.

Claims that Cochrane had been harassed were made not by Cochrane themselves, but, rather, by the authors of the controversial review, along with their friends, colleagues, and even their relatives.

I will write more about this issue soon.

In the meantime, you should check out the statement:

Cochrane has decided to temporarily withdraw a review of exercise therapies for the illness variously known as ME, CFS, ME/CFS and CFS/ME. The review reported that exercise therapy is effective in treating the illness—a finding that has provided unwarranted support for recommendations that patients should undergo the intervention known as graded exercise therapy. Yet Cochrane has found merit in complaints about serious scientific missteps and has asked the review team to respond accordingly.

Supporters of the approach to treatment endorsed by the Cochrane review have portrayed the decision for temporary withdrawal as a loss for science and an unfortunate capitulation to pressure from a vocal patient lobby. But patients have criticized the review not because they harbor anti-scientific views or are prejudiced against psychiatry. Rather, they have expressed reasonable and convincing concerns about the poor methodological choices made by the reviewers, who to date have not offered robust explanations.

We therefore believe it is important to voice our support for Cochrane’s effort to seek clarity on the issues raised not only by patients but by many others as well, including scientists, clinicians and academics. Here are some key reasons why we agree with Cochrane’s decision…

Read the rest at Virology Blog.

Brian Hughes

Brian Hughes is an academic psychologist and university professor in Galway, Ireland, specialising in stress, health, and the application of psychology to social issues. He writes widely on the psychology of empiricism and of empirically disputable claims, especially as they pertain to science, health, medicine, and politics.