Fraudulent action by QMUL
Dear Queen Mary, University of London,
I request a copy of the financial audit of the 5 million pound PACE trial, for which the MRC says you are responsible.
Actions taken by QMUL to investigate the misleading claims and potentially fraudlent activities carried out by the PACE personal.
Steps and procedures put in place to prevent future publications of "massaged data".
Actions taken by QMUL to reverse the harm and adverse impact caused to people with ME/CFS, caused by the false claims by PACE authors.
http://www.virology.ws/2016/09/21/no-rec...
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chro...
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/871552
Yours faithfully,
Freda Frogget
The symptom heterogeneity, combined with the lack of specific biomarker, has resulted in skepticism among some clinicians that the condition is biologically, rather than psychologically, based.
However, studies during the last decade point to biological underpinnings. At the biennial IACFSME conference, more than 100 papers were presented that contribute further to the evidence base, according to Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, and editor-in-chief of the Harvard Health Letter.
"Case-control studies comparing patients with ME/CFS to both disease comparison groups and healthy control subjects find robust evidence of an underlying biological process involving the brain and autonomic nervous system, immune system, energy metabolism, and oxidative and nitrosative stress," Dr Komaroff said in a conference summary at the end of the meeting.
He added, "To those people out there who still question whether there is really anything wrong in this illness, my advice to them would be try consulting the evidence."
Dear QM FOI Enquiries,
FYI - the peer reviewed publication of the re-analysis of the PACE trial as per the specified trial protocol. Just to put my request in context.
Yours sincerely,
Freda Frogget
Journal
Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior
Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial
Carolyn Wilshire, Tom Kindlon, Alem Matthees & Simon McGrath
Pages 1-14 | Received 07 Jul 2016, Accepted 06 Nov 2016, Published online: 14 Dec 2016
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Publications from the PACE trial reported that 22% of chronic fatigue syndrome patients recovered following graded exercise therapy (GET), and 22% following a specialised form of CBT. Only 7% recovered in a control, no-therapy group. These figures were based on a definition of recovery that differed markedly from that specified in the trial protocol.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether these recovery claims are justified by the evidence.
METHODS: Drawing on relevant normative data and other research, we critically examine the researchers’ definition of recovery, and whether the late changes they made to this definition were justified. Finally, we calculate recovery rates based on the original protocol-specified definition.
RESULTS: None of the changes made to PACE recovery criteria were adequately justified. Further, the final definition was so lax that on some criteria, it was possible to score below the level required for trial entry, yet still be counted as ‘recovered’. When recovery was defined according to the original protocol, recovery rates in the GET and CBT groups were low and not significantly higher than in the control group (4%, 7% and 3%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.
Dear QM FOI Enquiries,
FYI - the re-analysis of the PACE data as per the protocol specified in 2007, has been published.
Yours sincerely,
Freda Frogget
Journal
Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior
Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial
Carolyn Wilshire, Tom Kindlon, Alem Matthees & Simon McGrath
Pages 1-14 | Received 07 Jul 2016, Accepted 06 Nov 2016, Published online: 14 Dec 2016
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Publications from the PACE trial reported that 22% of chronic fatigue syndrome patients recovered following graded exercise therapy (GET), and 22% following a specialised form of CBT. Only 7% recovered in a control, no-therapy group. These figures were based on a definition of recovery that differed markedly from that specified in the trial protocol.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether these recovery claims are justified by the evidence.
METHODS: Drawing on relevant normative data and other research, we critically examine the researchers’ definition of recovery, and whether the late changes they made to this definition were justified. Finally, we calculate recovery rates based on the original protocol-specified definition.
RESULTS: None of the changes made to PACE recovery criteria were adequately justified. Further, the final definition was so lax that on some criteria, it was possible to score below the level required for trial entry, yet still be counted as ‘recovered’. When recovery was defined according to the original protocol, recovery rates in the GET and CBT groups were low and not significantly higher than in the control group (4%, 7% and 3%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.
FOI 2016/F367
Dear Freda Frogget
I am afraid that your request is refused under s.14(1) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. Public authorities are not obliged to deal with
requests if they deem them to be vexatious.
If you are dissatisfied with this response and have used your real name,
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.uk/
Dear QM FOI Enquiries,
Vexatious an interesting concept - since when has seeking information on the actions by a university to correct the misleading and false claims made by one of its professors been vexatious???
Presumably no action has been taken by QMUL in relation to the well documented faults and flaws in the PACE trial.
Yours sincerely,
Freda Frogget
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