Coyne: Bristol Uni refuses to disclose how much money paid for quack therapy in SMILE clinical trial

[AndyPR]

The University of Bristol has refused to provide basic information concerning how much Phil Parker, a proponent of a quack therapy, was paid for training and treatment provided to patients provided in a clinical trial conducted by Professor Dr. Esther Crawley. I reproduce the response to the Freedom of Information Request below.

https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...id-for-quack-therapy-in-smile-clinical-trial/

 

[Chrisb]

I have made a note in the margin. NFB.

 

[Marky90]

I actually studied 1 yr at that very adress, kinda weird seeing them involved in this mess.

 

[Esther12]

Just the photo of Phil Parker should be enough to win a debate about the merits of SMILE.

 

[halcyon]

Clever FOI loophole. Claim the data is covered under pending publication (even when it's not) and then just never publish.

 

[Dolphin]

Clever FOI loophole. Claim the data is covered under pending publication (even when it's not) and then just never publish.

Very frustrating. For example, I don't recall seeing the cost of a study being published in a paper. Certainly if it does happen, it doesn't happen very often and there is no particular reason to expect it here.

Also releasing that data now would have no negative effect of publishing a paper: quite often the cost of the study is known but I don't believe that has any effect on publishing a paper on such a study.

 

[Snow Leopard]

Clever FOI loophole. Claim the data is covered under pending publication (even when it's not) and then just never publish.

Suggests it would be okay to apply for a new request if they don't publish it in the paper...