David Tuller: Trial By Error, Continued: More Nonsense from The Lancet Psychiatry

[Kati]

http://www.virology.ws/2016/01/19/trial-by-error-continued-more-nonsense-from-the-lancet-psychiatry/

Here is David's take on how the PACE trial authors defended the Lancet Psych long term follow-up paper

Here is the begining but click on the link and read the whole thing, it's not too long:

The PACE authors have long demonstrated great facility in evading questions they don’t want to answer. They did this in their response to correspondence about the original 2011 Lancet paper. They did it again in the correspondence about the 2013 recovery paper, and in their response to my Virology Blog series. Now they have done it in their answer to critics of their most recent paper on follow-up data, published last October in The Lancet Psychiatry.

(They published the paper just a week after my investigation ran. Wasn’t that a lucky coincidence?)

 

[Sean]

The PACE authors have long demonstrated great facility in evading questions they don’t want to answer.

Yep.

 

[Ellkaye]

So where are we with this?
I thought a court had ordered them to make the data public? No?

 

[Esther12]

So where are we with this?
I thought a court had ordered them to make the data public? No?

QMUL are appealing that. And fighting against PLOS/Coyne. Not sure if Tuller etc will be appealing their FOI refusal.

 

[adreno]

Nothing is going to happen until there are consequences for the PACE authors, such as papers getting retracted, etc.

 

[A.B.]

Nothing is going to happen until there are consequences for the PACE authors, such as papers getting retracted, etc.

This. They don't give a flying **** about what we think or say. They're not going to change course until forced to by real consequences.

 

[Ellkaye]

So QMUL may lose the appeal?
If so they ll give access?
Is that the state of play?
Have they won the appeal?