• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

PACE trial: QMUL appeal information re hearing on 20 - 22 April (UK)

G

Gijs

Senior Member
Messages
691
The authors of the Pace trial be vindicated. It is a political game. I am 100% sure that the data will not be released.
 
C

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
M'learned friends were certainly following social media at the time of the hearing - because one twitter item was specifically referred to when were were being warned about how the tribunal proceedings could be reported (or not reported) on social media…...
 
A

Aurator

Senior Member
Messages
625
charles shepherd said:
M'learned friends were certainly following social media at the time of the hearing - because one twitter item was specifically referred to when were were being warned about how the tribunal proceedings could be reported (or not reported) on social media…...
Click to expand...
I assume you've had no contact with the three members of the panel since the hearing.

Can we safely assume the same about the other side in this dispute? Has contact since the tribunal between interested parties and the panel been expressly forbidden? If not, what assurance do we have that the other side have not attempted to unfairly influence the panel's decision by engaging in further informal dialogue with them since the day of the tribunal? Further contact of this kind, particularly if assented to or even just acquiesced in by members of the panel, would, as I'm sure everyone is aware, raise serious questions about the fairness of the judicial process in this case.
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Snow Leopard said:
Speaking of inappropriate posting on social media.

Here is the lawyer who represented Alem Matthees/the ICO.

http://yourbarristerboyfriend.tumbl...8/hottie-of-the-week-no-paine-no-gain-edition
He's cute, no?
Click to expand...
He represented the ICO rather than Alem Matthees. The ICO are defending their decision where as Matthees is an additional party to the case and I assume just gave written submissions some (or possibly all) of which has been released to @Valerie Eliot Smith and is linked to from her blog.

I think there was a long list of material on her blog and it was long so if the panel want to make sure they fully understand the case they potentially have a huge amount of reading to do which may be why it takes so long.
 
W

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
Aaaaaaaaaand - wait a bit longer:
An inquiry was made yesterday to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) concerning the progress of the long-awaited judgment in this case. The following response was received almost immediately:

The judge is still drafting the decision and I do not have any indication as to when the final decision will be promulgated.
Click to expand...

So – still no news as of 15 July 2016.
Click to expand...
https://valerieeliotsmith.com/2016/...e-pace-trial-judgment-qmul-v-ic-and-matthees/
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
I feel like the last few months have had a few things that have moved the debate in our direction. The recent govt report arguing that consent was not required for the sharing of anonymised medical data, ever growing awareness of problems in medical, and particularly psych, research which require more scrutiny of researchers work and data, the FINE data being put back on-line at PLoS with Manchester uni saying that there is no problem with the consent forms... but I don't know if any of that will be able to affect this ruling. Annoying some of this stuff didn't happen before the tribunal take place.

I think that the arguments for the release of this data are so strong that any further public debate on this issue amongst researchers will be to our benefit, so hopefully at least the ruling will do that. I think that we're now past the point where anyone will fall for the bigoted BS about patients just being concerned about PACE because they hate psychiatry, or are afraid of the stigma that comes with successful rehabilitative therapies... a ruling promoting that stuff would be somewhat irritating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.