#bmj — Public Fediverse posts

@Arpie4Math @W6KME @TheBreadmonkey We had Read Codes for it, merged later with SNOMED.
There's also from time to time articles in the #BMJ sometimes involving eg plaster of Paris and a stick.

Hat inzwischen mal wer den Vorschlag der Justizministerin zur Bekämpfung digitaler Gewalt gesehen, der überall besprochen wird? Also vollständig, nicht nur den 2. Teil?

Hat das Kabinett den überhaupt beschlossen? Es ist so still?

#DigitaleGewalt #Deepfakes #BMJ

5/* published by the BMJ, Palantir: Coalition urges NHS organisations to refuse to use controversial tech giant’s software https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s481

#NHS #MedAct #NoPalantir #Palantir #BMJ #Israel #Nato #Ukraine #FDP

Full open access to the article referred to in the screenshot below

Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ):

"Palantir: Coalition urges NHS organisations to refuse to use controversial tech giant’s software"

https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s481

@smaurizi : Thanks for sharing. The etiquette here is to add #AltText to all images, so they can be understood by people with visual impairment/ low speed internet connection.

#Palantir
#NHS
#BMJ

Neue #opendata Anwendung: Firmenatlas.com - kostenlosen Zugriff auf österreichische Firmenbuchdaten – mit Jahresabschlüssen und detaillierten Finanzzahlen inklusive Mehrjahres-Trends, Charts und Vergleichsmöglichkeiten. https://www.data.gv.at/applications/4b5a61af-4988-4c27-9c33-982b17863d21?locale=de #hvd #bmj

New article co-authored by CPC-CG member Ann Berrington on reaching consensus on how we define modifiable determinants of #health is now published in #BMJ #PublicHealth.

‘A modifiable #healthdeterminant must be potentially changeable through direct and/or indirect interventions at the individual or #population levels, and it must be possible to quantify or describe such change in some way.'

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/4/1/e004189

Food preservatives linked to higher diabetes and cancer risk in large French studies https://www.diningandcooking.com/2483101/food-preservatives-linked-to-higher-diabetes-and-cancer-risk-in-large-french-studies/ #BMJ #cancer #francais #france #French #FrenchDiet #NatureCommunications #PackagedFoods #preservatives #PreservativesInFood #RiskOfType2Diabetes #studies

Important letter in British Medical Journal #bmj on non-violent civil obedience (in case of emergency, break glass!) #climatebreakdown #HealthforXR
‘If we punish the doctors who shout for help, who is left to resuscitate society?’
https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s25/rr

Schnell war gestern: Schon seit langen Jahren wird hierzulande über die überfällige #Reform vom #Computerstrafrecht debattiert.

Nun aber scheint es weiter zu gehen: Nicht nur, dass das #BSI die explizite Absicherung von Sicherheitsforscher:innen fordert, auch wurde bekannt, dass im #BMJ wohl ein neuer #Gesetzentwurf vorliegt.

Einiges der relevanten Kritik an der Reform vom Computerstrafrecht habe ich beim #38C3 zusammen mit @fh4ntke referiert:

https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-was-lange-whrt-wird-endlich-gut-die-modernisierung-des-computerstrafrechts #cybersecurity

@jesterchen Sind wir? Nur weil https://jens-spahn-fordert.de sagt, dass die Fraktion dagegen ist? Schachern das nicht heute #BMI #BMJ hinter verschlossenen Türen aus wie die Position ist?

#naukasbilbao25  Gemma Marfany – El misterio de la momia maldita @gmarfanyn.bsky.social / @gmarfanyn nos habla del artículo #BMJ Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268.abstract

🐍 Oh, look, another earth-shattering revelation: the DSM-5, aka the psychiatrist's bible, has "undisclosed" financial #conflicts. 😱 Who could have guessed that money might influence medical guidelines? Bravo, #BMJ, for revealing the obvious with all the suspense of a deflated balloon. 🎈
https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-076902 #DSM5 #FinancialInfluence #MedicalEthics #Revelation #HackerNews #ngated

@MelissaBearTrix @jwcph

Doctor a bit longer ago, "look on the Web, if there isn't something there, write it, if you can, and post it, if you can."

#BMJ published my letter.

BMJ’s “Commissioned” Propaganda Piece Hijacked Death of Maeve Boothby O’Neill; Boothby O’Neill’s Mum Responds

By David Tuller, DrPH

Under the editorial leadership of Kamran Abbasi, The BMJ and other journals in BMJ Group have become, at times, mouthpieces for members of the biopsychosocial ideological brigades. That hasn’t been surprising, given his actions during his previous tenure as editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Under his stewardship, the journal published a piece of crap co-authored by Professor Sir Simon Wessely, a former president of the royal society, and his King’s College London’s colleague Trudie Chalder, the factually and mathematically challenged professor cognitive behavior therapy and one of the lead PACE authors. The 2020 article, Cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome: outcomes from a specialist clinic in the UK, made causal statements even as it declared that its single-cohort study design did not allow for making causal statements.

When my friend and colleague Brian Hughes, a psychology professor at the University of Galway, and I pointed this out and presented other irrefutable evidence of error, Abbasi declined to take action to correct the public record. We published our critique as a separate article in the Journal of Health Psychology.

Since Abbasi’s ascent as editor in chief of The BMJ, BMJ journals have published some egregious work on ME/CFS and Long COVID. (Not that they were good before.) Most recently, in May, The BMJ, the flagship journal, published what I called “a commissioned propaganda piece” from die-hard biopsychosocial-ists. The commentary, which is called “Patients with severe ME/CFS need hope and expert multidisciplinary care,” touted so-called multi-disciplinary treatment approaches that have no legitimate evidence of effectiveness.

The first author of The BMJ’s invited opinion piece is infectious diseases specialist Alastair Miller, a longtime proponent of graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavior therapy as curative treatments and formerly associated with what was called the Liverpool Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Service. Last summer, during the inquest into the death of 27-year-old Maeve Boothby O’Neill from ME-related complications in Exeter in 2021, The Observer published an offensive and stupid opinion piece by Professor Miller. In the piece, he attempted to hijack the tragedy of Boothby O’Neill’s death to promote his persistent ideological beliefs about purportedly successful rehabilitative strategies.

Another author of the new BMJ article is Paul Garner, also an infectious diseases physician, who has now spent years presenting his N=1 case of recovery from post-viral symptoms as evidence of the power of his strong manly cognitions to cure Long COVID. Per Garner’s claim, this medical turnaround occurred immediately after a phone consultation with someone who sounded very much like a practitioner of the Lightning Process—whether or not that is actually the case.

Like Professor Miller’s piece last summer, the new commentary includes, perhaps not surprisingly, a reference to Boothy O’Neill’s death, in the following sentence: “However, functional impairment may lead to malnutrition and dehydration—described as the cause of death of Maeve Boothby O’Neill, who died in 2021 at age 27.” To be clear: the claim that Maeve’s “impairment” was “functional” rather than driven by ME-related pathophysiological dysfunctions is an unproven theory and contradicts the coroner’s report. The “functional” claim is this lot’s security blanket. But believing in the tooth fairy does not mean the tooth fairy exists.

This desperate plea for relevance from a group of misguided partisans prompted a flurry of rapid responses. So far, 21 have been publicly posted. Sarah Boothby, Maeve’s mother, twice submitted a rapid response. However, it has not appeared. I have posted her comment below. (A version is also posted on Boothby’s LinkedIn page)

**********

Dear Editor in Chief, Kamran Abbasi

I submitted the following through the BMJ Latest rapid response portal twice, the second time with a request for acknowledgment.  As the BMJ has neither published my corrections and criticism nor acknowledged my communication I am writing to you formally for an explanation.  Please explain why the BMJ is commissioning and publishing misinformation specifically on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis?

“In commissioning and publishing the opinion piece by Miller et al (BMJ 2025;389:r977) the BMJ failed to fact check and consequently misled its readership on the risk of death from very severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME).  Those interested in medical ethics should note:

Maeve Boothby O’Neill died from ME shortly after her twenty-seventh birthday.  She was not the first and has not been the last to die from this devastating illness yet the BMJ made no correction to the claim that Maeve died from malnutrition and dehydration.  Dehydration and malnutrition are both easily treatable conditions in Britain.  The inquest into Maeve’s death took three years investigating how a preventable death could have been permitted to a young woman who did not want to die, had been actively taking medical advice since the onset of symptoms in 2008, and had consented to three hospital admissions in the seven months prior her premature death in 2021.

It took four years of extensive tests and investigations before Maeve was diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), by which time she had obtained A* results in Russian, Biology, English and Chemistry at A Level.  Such results are not possible without the ability to understand instructions and take advice.  Once diagnosed she was under specialist CFS services for eight years, including the Centre of Excellence in Bristol.  She meticulously followed the instructions and advice they gave.  Maeve never believed she would not recover; she learnt from the bitterest experience how the disease progresses from mild to very severe.

Maeve’s health deteriorated following a mild viral infection from which she (and the rest of her family) appeared to have fully recovered when Maeve was thirteen.  Her symptoms steadily progressed to being serious enough that her PE teachers stopped her from joining their lessons; the risk of her being injured was too high.

The facts of Maeve’s death disqualified Miller as an Expert Witness at her inquest.  By the end of the three-year inquiry, HMA Coroner was mildly better informed about ME than before the inquest opened.  In the process of establishing the facts she confirmed that there are no inpatient services for people with ME anywhere in the UK, either in private or publicly owned hospitals.  If the opinions of Miller et al had any efficacy in cases of ME, Maeve would still be alive today.

The Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report mentions six national institutions responsible for failing to prevent Maeve’s premature death.  These include the National Health Service (NHS), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC).  Failure on this scale can only be remedied by systemic change, which must involve leadership at the highest level.

If a provincial inquest can establish these facts about ME, the BMJ should have little difficulty in doing similar.  Failure to correct its editorial stance on this disease, when the international consensus is prioritising patient safety, casts doubt on both the reliability and ethics of opinions from the British medical establishment.”

A shortened version can be found featured in my LinkedIn profile here.

Sincerely

Sarah Boothby

(View the original post at virology.ws)

#AlastairMiller #BMJ #paulGarner

Es gibt eine #Petition:

An
Bundesministerium Innovation, Mobilität und Infrastruktur
für die Änderung Straßenverkehrsordnung (#StVO) sowie das Bundesministerium für Justiz (#BMJ) für datenschutzrechtliche Aspekte.
Sichere Straßen für #Radfahrer: #Dashcams legalisieren und Leben schützen!

https://mein.aufstehn.at/petitions/sichere-strassen-fur-radfahrer-dashcams-legalisieren-und-leben-schutzen?share=b27bc24d-109f-4893-94c0-2bb20dae4726

#AUTOkorrektur
#Fahrrad
#VisionZero
@fedibikes

More on the BMJ Opinion Piece from the Psychobabblers

By David Tuller, DrPH

When it comes to ME and ME/CFS, The BMJ—formerly called The British Medical Journal but now, like the food franchise once known as Kentucky Fried Chicken, officially reduced to a mere acronym—is a long-time champion of the “biopsychosocial” ideological brigades. (I use the “scare quotes” because the term is a misnomer, given that these experts focus pretty much exclusively on the “psycho” and “social” while largely ignoring the “bio” part of the equation.) So it should not surprise anyone that The BMJ recently published yet another ignorant and misguided screed from this crew—a commissioned opinion piece titled “Patients with severe ME/CFS need hope and expert multidisciplinary care,” from Miller et al. (I first posted about this propaganda piece a few days ago.)

Indeed, The BMJ, and the many other titles under the BMJ publishing umbrella, have for decades provided opportunities for the GET/CBT zealots to air their theories about deconditioning and problematic illness beliefs as causal factors for ME/CFS—theories now extended to Long Covid. A 1989 letter written by Dr Melvin Ramsey, an early ME researcher, reveals the historical nature of this prejudicial and biased approach.

Dr. Ramsey investigated the 1950s disease outbreak at London’s Royal Free Hospital, the event that subsequently gave rise to the name “myalgic encephalomyelitis.” In 2021, an invaluable Twitter (now X) account, Royal Free 1955, which has released an impressive archive of relevant documents, posted Dr. Ramsey’s letter. In the letter, addressed to someone named Edith, Dr. Ramsey discussed the challenges he was confronting in trying to publish ME-related research. Here’s the key section:

“For many months we have been in difficulty by the influence exerted by a psychiatrist, Dr. Simon Wessly [sic] who has secured for himself the position of referee to the BMJ whose Assistant Editor has been strongly anti-ME and we cannot get anything published in British medical journals in our favor. Simon Wessly cuts right across my fundamental tenet of “rest” for chronic M.E. cases and tries to get them admitted to Psychiatric Units where they are immediately put on vigorous exercise.”

The BMJ’s skewed view of this issue continued during the reign of Dr Fiona Godlee, the previous editor in chief. I had many go-round with Dr Godlee, who stepped aside in 2021, over some of the nonsense published in various BMJ journals during her tenure. That included the report on the fraudulent pediatric study of the woo-woo Lightning Process conducted by Professor Esther Crawley, Bristol University’s ethically and methodologically challenged pediatrician and grant magnet. (Professor Crawley has since retired from the university and from medical practice, for reasons that have not been publicly explained. No great loss!)

That clinical trial, published in 2018 in BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood, violated core principles of scientific research, rendering its findings unreliable and essentially uninterpretable. Specifically, the authors recruited more than half the participants before the trial was formally registered, and swapped primary and secondary outcomes after having collected much of their data. All major medical journals have policies forbidding such actions, none of which were revealed in the published trial report. The paper should clearly have been retracted. Instead, it now carries a 3,000-word correction and a 1,000-word editorial note offering tortured but unconvincing excuses for why it was re-published with the exact same findings.

Dr Godlee’s successor was Dr. Kamran Abbasi. I have had prior dealings with Dr Abbasi as well. He was formerly the editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. During his tenure, the journal published a seriously problematic paper whose authors included Professor Sir Simon Wessely and Trudie Chalder, King’s College London’s mathematically and factually challenged professor of cognitive behavior therapy. The paper was called “Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for chronic fatigue and CFS: outcomes from a specialist clinic in the UK.”

Among other concerns, the authors made causal claims of success for their intervention even as they acknowledged that their observational study was incapable of documenting causal relationships. Dr Abbasi refused to take any corrective action. We ended up publishing our critique as a full-fledged paper in the Journal of Health Psychology.

In other words, Dr Abbasi protected Professor Sir Simon, Professor Chalder and their colleagues from accountability for their indisputable errors. His failure to pursue the necessary steps to ensure the accuracy of the scientific literature was extremely disturbing and represented a violation of his responsibilities to both the field of medicine and the general public. Dr Abbasi’s decision revealed his true colors—and his biased approach to this issue. No one should expect anything different from him during his stewardship of the BMJ stable of publications.

**********

Snippets from some of the rapid responses

The recent opinion piece has now racked up more than a dozen rapid responses, many of them quite eloquent in their expressions of dismay at the bogus arguments advanced by the authors. I’ve included a few quotes from these responses here.

Elke Hausmann, GP in Derby: “There are thousands of us, including many doctors with Long Covid or ME, who argue that continuing to invest in researching mind/body approaches is taking away from the real research we need, into understanding the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms at play in ME and Long Covid, which has always been where progress in medicine and medical treatments has come from.”

Tom Parsons, severe ME patient in Sussex, England: “The so-called biopsychosocial approach is continuously presented as a new and cutting-edge approach to treating people with ME/CFS when it has been the dominant treatment paradigm in this country and elsewhere since the 1990s and, in that time, its advocates have failed to produce any good quality evidence that these approaches help people recover any significant degree of functioning. To present these approaches as exciting new science is, to borrow a phrase, serving old wine in new bottles.”

David Putrino, neuroscientist and professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, along with more than a dozen other experts and patient advocates: “Miller et al continue to promote the unsubstantiated claims that ME/CFS is deeply rooted in psychosomatic aetiology and occurs due to a combination of deconditioning and “unhelpful illness beliefs.” They argue that “the patients’ belief that they won’t recover can harm their mental wellbeing.” These assertions lack credible scientific basis, contradict current NICE guidelines, and risk causing further harm to people with ME/CFS.”

Dom J. Salisbury, patient advocate in Lancashire, England: “In their opinion piece, Miller and coauthors ignore PEM when listing common symptoms of ME/CFS. This is an attempt to continue framing this illness as belonging to a family of ‘fatiguing conditions’, which, along with other ‘medically unexplained symptoms’, they argue can be treated with psychological interventions and rehabilitation.”

Michiel Tack, patient in Hulst, The Netherlands: “The view that ME/CFS is maintained by unhelpful thoughts and behavior is poorly supported by current evidence and may unfairly blame patients for their illness and failure to recover. This model has been tested in the past with disappointing results, which is likely why NICE no longer recommends it.”

(View the original post at virology.ws)

#BMJ #FionaGodlee

⚛ **Editorial: Ending nuclear weapons, before they end us**

“_Even a fraction of the current arsenal could decimate the biosphere in a severe mass extinction event. The global climate disruption caused by the smoke pouring from cities ignited by just 2% of the current arsenal could result in over two billion people starving._”

Abbasi K, Ali P, Barbour V, Birch M, Blum I, Doherty P et al. Ending nuclear weapons, before they end us BMJ 2025; 389 :r881 doi: https://www.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r881

#OpenAccess #OA #DOI #BMJ #Editorial #Nuclear #Armageddon #Extinction

Das wird in der Tat eine der dicken Brocken für das neue Justiz- und #Verbraucherschutz-Ministerium #BMJ und des @BMWK! Der #Fernwärme-Markt braucht v.a. mehr #Preiskontrolle und faire Preise für #Verbraucher:innen, damit die #Akzeptanz für diese wichtige Säule der #Wärmewende hoch bleibt. Der Bundesverband Verbraucherzentralen #VZBV hat die Forderung jüngst nochmal erneuert und mit einer Studie unterfüttert! #Energieverbrauchrunter #Energiesparen #Sanierung #GasExit #lessismore #Effizienzwende #Nahwärme #Wärmenetz #fernwarme

🔗 https://www.vzbv.de/pressemitteilungen/teure-fernwaermepreise-verbraucherzentrale-fordert-preisdeckel

An #editorial in the highly respected #BMJ explains that Trump et al are #destroying #science and must be stopped: “Trump’s first 100 days have destroyed the foundations of 100 years’ scientific progress and pre-eminence.” https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r862

Die #Überwachungsgesamtrechnung ist da, ohne jede Ankündigung oder Pressemitteilung am Freitagmorgen online gepackt von @bmi.bund.de und #BMJ. War der Versuch erfolgreich, staatliche Überwachungsbefugnisse und deren realen Einsatz zu kartografieren? #datenschutz #polizei #nachrichtendienste

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:zv657bpskxtjkvbdd5wymjam/post/3lobkvgapki2r

Wenn ihr ein wenig Wochenendlektüre braucht.

#BMJ und #BMI haben die #Überwachungsgesamtrechnung veröffentlicht:
https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Fachpublikationen/2025_Forschungsbericht_Ueberwachungsgesamtrechnung.html?nn=144128

Das ist das Ergebnis einer Studie des Max-Planck-Instituts zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht.

Smartphone and social media harms: why we failed in our duty of care | The #BMJ

A lead banner cautions: "Intended for healthcare professionals"

https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r658

Weil es die Kolleginnen & Kollegen vom #BMJ noch nicht ins Fediverse geschafft haben, teilen wir hier einmal deren wunderschöne Botschaft zum #Frühlingsanfang.

#Grundgesetz #GGUltras #RechtsstaatistLiebe #Loveisintheair

The Government stopped funding for Tell Mama, an organisation fighting Islamophobia. Another favour to Trump?

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r497

#Islamophobia #BMJ #NHS #UKPOL #UKpolitics

These two pieces were published nine days apart but by chance I saw they both today. I'm in no position to judge them, but I'm struck by their convergence and timing.

1. "The Coronavirus Consensus Was Wrong"
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-coronavirus-consensus-was-wrong
(#paywalled)

A book review in the _Chronicle of Higher Education_. Two Princeton political scientists who "describe themselves as progressives," Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, argue that “the truth-seeking functions of journalism, science, and universities [were] undermined by class bias, political polarization, partisan animosity, premature moralization of disagreements, and intolerance of reasonable dissent and contestation.”

2. "COVID-19 advocacy bias in the BMJ: meta-research evaluation"
https://bmjopenquality.bmj.com/content/14/1/e003131

In an article (not an editorial) in _BMJ Open Quality_ four researchers argue that during the pandemic "#BMJ had a strong bias in favour of authors advocating an aggressive approach to COVID-19 mitigation" and published too many opinion and advocacy pieces with little or no review.

#COVID #Medicine

The beauty & clarity of righteous resistance: "#Medical journals, including The #BMJ, do not retract published articles on demand. We will not retract published articles on request by an author on the basis that they contain so-called banned words. Retraction occurs in circumstances where clear evidence exists of major errors, data fabrication, or falsification that compromise the reliability of the research findings. It is not a matter of author request."

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r253

The beauty & clarity of righteous resistance: "#Medical journals, including The #BMJ, do not retract published articles on demand. We will not retract published articles on request by an author on the basis that they contain so-called banned words. Retraction occurs in circumstances where clear evidence exists of major errors, data fabrication, or falsification that compromise the reliability of the research findings. It is not a matter of author request."

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r253

Update. The #BMJ isn't the only journal pushing back against the #CDC directive that staff scientists should retract pending publications that use Trump-banned words. (Earlier in this thread.)

Kudos to the _American Journal of Public Health_ (#AJPH) for pushing back as well.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/114076

From publisher Georges Benjamin: "We at the American Journal of Public Health have no interest in following the president's prohibitions on language. We will publish things under our guidelines, under our ethical principles." Benjamin acknowledged that the journal may now get fewer submissions from government scientists.

AJPH is published by the American Public Health Association (#APHA).

#Censorship #Medicine #ScholComm #SocietyPublisher #Trump #USPol #USPolitics

BMJ Has Corrected the REGAIN Trial Paper–But Not the Editorial or Systematic Review Touting REGAIN’s Findings

By David Tuller, DrPH

Last February, The BMJ published a paper called “Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial,” from McGregor et al. The study purported to have proven that this multi-disciplinary intervention was “clinically effective” in reducing symptoms associated with Long Covid. Unfortunately, the claim was fraught with problems that rendered it bogus. (I have written about the trial several times, including here and here.)

First and foremost, the study was unblinded and relied solely on subjective, self-reported outcomes—a combination of traits that inevitably leads to unknown amounts of bias. In such instances, modestly positive results would be expected as an artifact of the study design and are essentially meaningless.

Beyond that, the study included some untenable flaws. Specifically:

*In prominent sections of the paper, including the conclusion of the abstract and a highlights box called “What this study adds,” the investigators presented their findings as if they could be extrapolated to all Long Covid patients. This was completely unwarranted because it omitted a highly salient point. The study participants had all been hospitalized for acute Covid-19, while the great majority of Long Covid patients have not been hospitalized. Given the major differences between these two populations, it is scientifically unjustified to automatically assume that findings in one group apply to those in the other.

*The reported benefit on the primary outcome fell below the recommended threshold for what is called the “minimal clinically important difference” (MCID) for that measure, as determined by those who developed it. If a trial’s results do not meet the MCID recommended by the creators of an outcome measure, it is hard to take seriously the investigators’ claim that the intervention is “clinically effective.”

Given these and other issues, multiple complaints ensued. Some people filed rapid responses. I organized a letter to the journal’s editor-in-chief, Kamran Abbasi, signed by a dozen other colleagues. For their part, the investigators rejected all the criticisms in their own rapid response, posted last April. However, apparently someone at the BMJ disagreed with the investigators’ decision-making, because by May the paper bore a correction, although it addressed only the issue of the expansive extrapolation of the findings to all Long Covid patients. As the correction noted, the phrase “at least three months after hospital discharge for covid-19” was added to the key sections from which it had been omitted.

The correction did not include an explanation for why or how the journal overruled the investigators’ position that no such correction was needed. It was nonetheless an acknowledgement that the investigators, whether intentionally or not, had conveyed inaccurate or untrue information to the public. Unfortunately, media outlets had already disseminated this widely right after the study’s initial publication. No media outlets seemed to cover the correction.

Unfortunately for The BMJ, that is not the end of its responsibilities here. The claims from the trial have figured prominently in at least two other BMJ publications. An invited editorial accompanied the initial trial report last February. Like the trial itself, the editorial misrepresented the findings by not mentioning the limitations imposed by the study population until the very end.  No one who reads it would necessarily be aware that a correction to the trial has severely restricted the relevance of the findings to the larger Long Covid population.

Even more troubling, The BMJ in November published an article called “Interventions for the management of long covid (post-covid condition): living systematic review,” from Zeraatkar et al. The review relies solely on McGregor et al to claim “moderate certainty evidence” in favor of a program of physical and mental health rehabilitation for Long Covid patients. The investigators rejected the notion that the recommendation should be limited to patients who were hospitalized, even though the review was accepted for publication months after REGAIN was corrected to reinforce that specific point.

Did anyone notice or care about this discrepancy? Hard to tell. The policy at The BMJ is to post peer reviews. In this case, no peer reviews of this systematic review have yet appeared, with no explanation offered for the delay. It goes without staying that if a study is corrected and its findings dramatically limited to a much smaller population, other articles that relied on the initial error should also be fixed—whatever the authors of those other articles think. Even the biopsychosocial fanatics apparently in charge at BMJ should be able to understand this basic principle.

I organized letters to The BMJ editor on both counts. (They can be read here and here.) In both cases, I received responses from BMJ’s “research integrity” department assuring me that the questions I had raised were being reviewed. I have not yet received any information about resolutions.

********

Meanwhile, there are now eight rapid responses appended to Zeraatker et al. (Embarrassingly, one is from the REGAIN investigators themselves, questioning the review’s statistical analysis.) Several raise concerns about the review’s over-broad claims regarding the REGAIN findings, among other problematic issues. Of particular note are smart, well-argued responses from two patient advocates, Michiel Tack and Dominic Salisbury.

Perhaps at some point The BMJ and the team that produced this problematic “living systematic review” will decide to provide some answers.

(View the original post at virology.ws)

#BMJ #REGAIN

Letter to BMJ Editor Seeking Correction in New Review of Interventions for Long Covid

By David Tuller, DrPH

The BMJ recently published a review of interventions for Long Covid that–surprise!–recommended CBT and a rehabilitation program as treatments. The review is full of holes. I have focused on one in particular. The review relies for its rehabilitation recommendation on an earlier BMJ study–even though that study has itself already been corrected for having misrepresented its findings in key sections. This morning, I sent the following letter to Dr Kamran Abbasi, editor-in-chief of The BMJ:

Dear Dr Abbasi—

A recent paper in The BMJ, Interventions for the management of long covid (post-covid condition): living systematic review, from Zeraatkar et al,drew a crucial conclusion from a trial whose findings were seriously misrepresented. That trial report, also published by The BMJ, has already been corrected. The review needs a similar correction.

Zeraatkar et al recommended a mental and physical health rehabilitation program and cognitive behavior therapy as reasonable interventions for people suffering from the prolonged symptoms that characterize Long Covid. Each recommendation was based on a single clinical trial.

The basis for the first recommendation was Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial, from McGregor et al. The paper was published by The BMJ in February of this year and then corrected in May.  The initial version failed to note in major sections—such as the conclusion of the abstract—that the sample included only patients who had been hospitalized for acute Covid-19. Given the significant differences between Long Covid patients who have and have not been hospitalized, the trial findings cannot automatically be extrapolated to everyone with prolonged symptoms. The corrected version now makes that clear.

Unfortunately, the review from Zeraatkar et al committed the same error as the pre-corrected version of McGregor et al. The review did not mention in key passages—such as the abstract and conclusion–that its expansive recommendation for mental and physical rehabilitation came from a trial including only patients who had been hospitalized.  While the review noted this salient detail deep in the text, it nonetheless suggested that the intervention be offered far more broadly than warranted by the trial itself.

In short, if the trial paper required a correction for not highlighting prominently enough an indisputable limitation of its findings, then the review requires the same.

David Tuller (corresponding author)
Center for Global Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, USA
[email protected]

Nicola Baker
School of Health Sciences
University of Liverpool
Liverpool, England, UK

Svetlana Blitshteyn
Department of Neurology
Jacobs School of Medicine and Biological Sciences
University of Buffalo
Buffalo, New York, USA

Todd Davenport
Department of Physical Therapy
University of the Pacific
Stockton, California, USA

David Davies-Payne
Department of Radiology
Starship Children’s Hospital
Auckland, New Zealand

Andrew Ewing
Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Gothenburg
Gothenburg, Sweden

Mark Faghy
Human Sciences Research Centre
University of Derby
Derby, England, UK

Keith Geraghty
Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
University of Manchester
Manchester, England, UK

Mady Hornig
CORe Community (COVID Recovery through Community)
New York, New York, USA

Brian Hughes
School of Psychology
University of Galway
Galway, Ireland

Leonard Jason
Center for Community Research
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois, USA

Binita Kane
Respiratory Medicine
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
Manchester, England, UK

Douglas Kell
Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology
University of Liverpool
Liverpool, England, UK

Asad Khan
North West Lung Centre
Manchester University Hospitals
Manchester, England, UK

Resia Pretorius
Department of Physiological Sciences
Stellenbosch University
Stellenbosch, South Africa

David Putrino
Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance
Icahn School of Medicine at Mt Sinai
New York, New York, USA

Charles Shepherd
ME Association
Gawcutt, England, UK

John Swartzberg
Division of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, USA

Susan Taylor-Brown
Department of Pediatrics, Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
University of Rochester Medical Center
Rochester, New York, USA

(View the original post at virology.ws)

#BMJ #LongCovid #REGAIN

It is difficult to believe that #neoliberal #Labour, that is #UKgov, will listen let alone take action needed within the #NHS!

#pwME #MyalgicEncephalomyelitis #MECFS #ChronicFatigueSyndrome #CFS #Covid #LongCovid #PostViralFatigueSyndrome #PVFS #PostViralDisorder #ELCI

Link to #BMJ :

https://ebn.bmj.com/content/early/2024/08/29/ebnurs-2024-104177

Madhukar Pai writing in the BMJ calls for genuine global health equity and solidarity to tackle the current mpox 1b outbreak.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1803

#PublicHealth #GlobalHealth #mpox #HealthEquity #MadhukarPai #AfricaMatters #InfectiousDisease #DiseaseControl #Vaccination #GlobalSouth #VirusOutbreak #mpoxOutbreak #mpox1b #WorldHealthOrganization #PHEIC #ViralPandemic #PandemicMitigations #PublicHealthEmergency #InternationalHealth #AfricaCDC #VaccineEquity #Inequity #HealthCrisis #BMJ

"A paper was published in #BMJ #PublicHealth that has led to dangerous renewed #VaccineDeaths #ConspiracyTheories. The #actuary #StuartMcDonald did a brilliant thread yesterday debunking the paper and has given me permission to share it with you as a Substack post. I think it’s important that his analysis reaches as many people as possible!"

https://christinapagel.substack.com/p/guest-post-a-terrible-academic-paper

Denke wir können dieses "#Bauministerium" in der nächsten #Legislaturperiode ab 2025 auch gleich wieder abschaffen.

Niemand braucht diese #Arbeitsverweigerung und #Verhinderung von Verbesserungen im #Bund.

Die einzigen #Impulse für den Bau von #Sozialwohnungen kommen überhaupt nur noch von den Bundesländern hier.

Während das @BMWSB_Bund zusammen mit dem #BMJ versuchen, ihnen bloß Steine in den Weg zu legen. Bzw. die #Rechtslage mies zu halten.

Danke für nix. 😒

.

https://www.haufe.de/immobilien/wohnungswirtschaft/wohnraumfoerderung-richtlinien-fuer-sozialen-wohnungsbau_260_494490.html

.

#Justiz #OnlineVerhandlung #128aZPO

#BMJ will künftig #SofaRichter*innen erlauben + TV-Zimmer in #Gerichten einrichten.

Lt. Gesetzentwurf könnten Richter*innen + Beteiligte alle außerhalb vom #Gericht sein bei #Verhandlung. Dann müsste aber ins Gericht gestreamt werden. Schräg: dann wären nur die Zuschauer*innen im Gericht.

Echtes #Streaming von Verhandlungen wäre da konsequenter.

Heimlich mitfilmen (analoge Lücke) geht schon heute. Und größte Gefahr werden eh #Deepfakes.

#BMJ used to be better than this. The "Request Permissions" box implies that #FairUse doesn't exist or depends on publisher dispensation.

#Copyright #Copyfraud

Circola in ambienti #novax una "lettera dell'#oncologo al #BMJ". Anomalie ve ne sono, l'incremento di #cancro nei #vaccinati non esiste nelle statistiche e, generalmente, la narrazione novax si conferma quantomeno a senso unico

https://www.bufale.net/la-lettera-delloncologo-al-bmj-e-le-fallacie-dei-notutto/

Another classic #BMJ Christmas edition article (really useful for teaching #experimentalDesign and #statistics )
https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj-2022-072839
Direct Uptake of Nutrition and Caffeine Study (DUNCS): biscuit based comparative study

@tazgetroete #Bundesjustizminister (BMJ) #Buschmann verkündet "historische Reform" der #Ersatzfreiheitsstrafe (EFHS). Kern: 1 Tagessatz nicht bezahlte #Geldstrafe künftig = 1/2 Tag EFHS. #Sozialarbeiter sollen Nichtzahler unterstützen. Da selbst das #BMJ anerkennt, dass EFHS nicht zu #Resozialisierung beiträgt, wird der Entwurf zT stark kritisiert (s. Link). Was bringt die Änderung - was wäre wirklich nötig?

https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/ersatzfreiheitsstrafe-halbierung-gefaengnis-geldstrafe-reform-sanktionen-bmj/ 1/3