Action as a result of the admission the PACE analysis was misleading?
Dear Queen Mary, University of London
I request copies of information, pertaining to the major flaws and misleading claims, made by Peter White, in relation to the PACE trial, including but not limited to any proposed retractions/corrections etc of the results, published to date.
I have a copy of the letter by Peter White and the 2 other principal investigators Trudi Chalder and Micheal Sharpe, published on the Queen Mary University of London, news website, and don't need a copy of their admission that changing their analysis protocol from the one they published in the BMJ in 2007, inflated their results by a factor of three.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyKQjDim... A video on recent PACE and Bristol events.
http://www.virology.ws/2016/09/21/no-rec...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chro...
Yours faithfully,
Dave
Dear Dave
We acknowledge receipt of your request.
I am afraid that we are unable to process it unless you provide a full (real) name in line with Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please note that we will not process your request any further until we receive a response.
Yours sincerely
Queen Mary University of London
FOI 2016/F340
Dear David Tullerach
Thank you for your emails.
One minor clarification to the 2011 Lancet paper, concerning one item of
the Chalder fatigue questionnaire, was published in 2012, please see
attached.
Apart from this, the information you have requested is not held.
If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask QMUL to conduct a
review of this decision. To do this, please contact the College in
writing (including by fax, letter or email), describe the original
request, explain your grounds for dissatisfaction, and include an address
for correspondence. You have 40 working days from receipt of this
communication to submit a review request. When the review process has
been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you may ask the Information
Commissioner to intervene. Please see [1]www.ico.org.uk for details.
Yours sincerely
Paul Smallcombe
Records & Information Compliance Manager
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.ukCtrl+Click or tap to follow the link
http://www.ico.org.uk/
Dear QM FOI Enquiries,
I find it incomprehensible for QMUL not to have any of the information requested, given the fact that 42 world re-known scientists have asked The Lancet to retract the 2011 PACE trial based on its flawed science, and this was before the release of the PACE raw data.
I find it incomprehensible that QMUL has, NO INFORMATION or correspondence relating to the
major flaws in the trial and misleading claims, made by its Professor, Peter White, in relation to the PACE trial.
I find it incomprehensible that QMUL has no information on any retractions/corrections etc of misleading claims. For example does QMUL really support the idea that 13% of the people labelled as severely disabled and eligible for entry into a trial, could worsen and be counted as "recovered" according to the exit criteria?
The flaws in the PACE trial and the fact that Universities outside the UK as using the PACE trial as an example to teach students about poor trial design, failings in the "peer review" system etc in addition to the misleading reporting by drastically changing the outcome measures from those published in 2007, to weaker (ridiculously so- severely ill people are labelled recovered) ones in 2011, should be of concern to QMUL.
I find it incomprehensible that a scandal of the scale of the PACE trial has gone un-noticed and un-commented on by QMUL and that QMUL has no information on how it addressed what appears to be a gross travesty of science principles and/or how it will address these issues.
I request that QMUL recheck its records and provide the requested information.
Yours faithfully,
Dave Tullerach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyKQjDim... A video on recent PACE and Bristol events.
http://www.virology.ws/2016/09/21/no-rec...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chro...
Dear Queen Mary, University of London,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Queen Mary, University of London's handling of my FOI request 'Action as a result of the admission the PACE analysis was misleading?'.
Dear QM FOI Enquiries,
I find it incomprehensible for QMUL not to have any of the information requested.
The fact that 42 world re-known scientists have asked The Lancet to retract the 2011 PACE trial based on its flawed science, and this was before the release of the PACE raw data.
I find it incomprehensible that QMUL has, NO INFORMATION or correspondence relating to the
major flaws in the trial and misleading claims, made by its Professor, Peter White, in relation to the PACE trial.
I find it incomprehensible that QMUL has no information on any retractions/corrections etc of misleading claims.
For example does QMUL really support the idea that 13% of the people labelled as severely disabled and eligible for entry into a trial, could worsen and be counted as "recovered" according to the exit criteria?
The authors admitted that they "massaged" the results to get the rpe-determiend answer. To use Simon Wessleys analogy the ship had to be tweaked to make sure it arrived at the pre-determined port, as rough seas had thrown it off course.
The flaws in the PACE trial and the fact that Universities outside the UK as using the PACE trial as an example to teach students about poor trial design, failings in the "peer review" system etc in addition to the misleading reporting by drastically changing the outcome measures from those published in 2007, to weaker (ridiculously so- severely ill people are labelled recovered) ones in 2011, should be of concern to QMUL.
I find it incomprehensible that a scandal of the scale of the PACE trial has gone un-noticed and un-commented on by QMUL and that QMUL has no information relating to how it will address what appears to be a gross travesty of science principles.
Yours faithfully,
Dave Tullerach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyKQjDim... A video on recent PACE and Bristol events.
http://www.virology.ws/2016/09/21/no-rec...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chro...
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
Dear Dave Tullerach
We have considered your request for an internal review. Our original
response that no information is held, stands.
If you remain dissatisfied you have the right to appeal to the Information
Commission. Please see [1]www.ico.org.uk for details.
Yours sincerely
Paul Smallcombe
Queen Mary University of London
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
Dear QM FOI Enquiries,
Thank you - no need to take it further. QMUL's lack of information on the matter speaks volumes.
Yours sincerely,
Dave
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now