Tribunal orders QMUL to release anonymised PACE data 16 Aug 2016

[Luther Blissett]

The recent ICO ruling about workfare providers, http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=6691 , and was argued on similar grounds took 4 and a half years to finally come to an end, so I have to temper the excitement at the moment.

But still a well done to to everybody on our side in court, seems they did a really good job.

 

[John Mac]

"Whilst we accept that Professor Anderson was an expert witness, he was not a Tribunal appointed independent witness but appointed by the Appellant and clearly, in our view, had some self-interest, exaggerated his evidence and did not seem to us to be entirely impartial. What we got from him was a considerable amount of supposition and speculation with no actual evidence to support his assertions or counter the Respondents arguments;"

He could be talking about the entire PACE study itself

 

[TiredSam]

Sadly though, if that did happen, it would be even more taxpayers money down the drain.

I may be speculating wildly, but I wonder if someone else is bankrolling their legal bills? These amounts would be a drop in the ocean for the insurance industry.

 

[Tom Kindlon]

I uploaded the PDF to Google drive and converted it from scanned images it to text format, it's not quite perfect but pretty close, it is searchable and quotable now. If anyone wants to tidy it up further feel free.

I've uploaded this here for anyone who can't access it:
https://www.mediafire.com/?yee1rrv3k1mp6cm

 

[TiredSam]

The recent ICO ruling about workfare providers, http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=6691 , and was argued on similar grounds took 4 and a half years to finally come to an end, so I have to temper the excitement at the moment.

But still a well done to to everybody on our side in court, seems they did a really good job.

We have a document to quote, legal recognition that our arguments are valid, legal recongition that the PACE trial's claims about us and our motives are spurious and unfounded. It's a huge step forwards.

 

[Valentijn]

The Tribunal's comments really are excellent. I can't imagine that QMUL ever thought their arguments were worthy of winning the case, but they probably assumed that at worst they would just still have to release the data.

But the court has elegantly refuted most of their bullshit, some of which can be effectively used far beyond PACE. Want to use the SMC to trot out their usual smear campaign about militant ME patients to distract from promising biomedical research results, or reasonable criticism of their own work? Well, now we've got a frickin' judge, on the record, dismissing those claims for the nonsense that they are.

 

[worldbackwards]

James Coyne weighs in, diplomatic as ever:

Trudie Chalder used the scarce time allocated to her to appear before the tribunal specifically to continue her attack on my character. She expressed alarm over the threat my criticism posed to the reputation of the PACE investigators. Trudie, vexatious, my ass. You have been rude and unprofessional. You have consistently been refused to debate, but you can look forward to a future detailed critique of your miserable, p-hacked mediational analysis.

https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/tribunal-orders-release-of-pace-trial-data/

I can just imagine the conversation:

"Trudie, they've dismissed our concerns of the patient community, easy the weakest and most easily smeared of all our opponents. What do we do now?"
"Okay Pete, how about...we launch an attack on a respected researcher who's sited far more often that we are because he can be a bit of a nob?"
"Sounds like a plan!"

On a more serious level, I find it incomprehensible that the arguments that were so clearly deficient (and so horribly exposed) here were taken so seriously in response to the requests of @Graham and others. How on earth can they justify turning down a request for a tiny amount of data underpinning a graph that was already in the public domain, then turn round and demolish exactly the same arguments, posed in both desperation and anger, against a claim that amounted to pretty much everything? It really doesn't make any sense. Does anyone in the ICO actually talk to each other?

 

[Snow Leopard]

Can we give Alem Matthees an award, please?

@Graham is writing the limerick to go on the cake as I type!

 

[Daisymay]

There is no fixed time scale, Sasha. If they are going to seek leave to appeal, hopefully we should know within a couple of months. Unfortunately, it's not possible to be more specific than that.

Valerie, if they don't appeal how soon might we expect the data? Do they have to release it within a certain time scale?

And it they appeal, are appeals automatically allowed or could the authorities say their claims for an appeal are groundless and disallow it?

 

[Daisymay]

The Tribunal's comments really are excellent. I can't imagine that QMUL ever thought their arguments were worthy of winning the case, but they probably assumed that at worst they would still have to release the data.

But the court has elegantly refuted most of their bullshit, some of which can be effectively used far beyond PACE. Want to use the SMC to trot out their usual smear campaign about militant ME patients to distract from promising biomedical research results, or reasonable criticism of their own work? Well, now we've got a frickin' judge, on the record, dismissing those claims for the nonsense that they are.

I love it!

 

[Valentijn]

How on earth can they justify turning down a request for a tiny amount of data underpinning a graph that was already in the public domain, then turn round and demolish exactly the same arguments, posed in both desperation and anger, against a claim that amounted to pretty much everything?

Some people believe and repeat everything told to them by the authority which they respect the most. Other people scrutinize the rationale of the statements, and judge them on their merits.

I'm guessing Graham got one of the former from the ICO, and Mr Matthees got the latter. The Commissioner who took the case to the Tribunal seems to have been a very good one.

 

[John Mac]

From Valerie Elliot Smith's website of 14th April 2016


https://valerieeliotsmith.com/2016/...-on-release-of-pace-trial-data-20-april-2016/

Appeal
Any of the parties can appeal to the Upper Tribunal so the process is not necessarily over yet. The right to appeal is not automatic at this stage but is on a point of law only.
If the Tribunal orders that the information be disclosed, this must normally be done within 35 days of the date when judgment is served on the parties OR notice of appeal must be lodged.

 

[Dolphin]

I've uploaded this here for anyone who can't access it:
https://www.mediafire.com/?yee1rrv3k1mp6cm

Another copyable version, described as follows on Twitter:

High quality PDF of actual #PACE Tribunal Decision rejecting @QMUL appeal.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...iversity of London EA-2015-0269 (12-8-16).pdf

If anyone has the tools to compare two files, any differences that show up may help show any errors.

 

[lilpink]

Thank you, Mr Mathees.

Absolutely 'thank you' and to all those others who made requests for data. Quite a day!

 

[A.B.]

Appeal
Any of the parties can appeal to the Upper Tribunal so the process is not necessarily over yet. The right to appeal is not automatic at this stage but is on a point of law only.
If the Tribunal orders that the information be disclosed, this must normally be done within 35 days of the date when judgment is served on the parties OR notice of appeal must be lodged.

What's the difference between a regular appeal and an appeal on the point of law only?

Is it correct to say that the question of anonymity, the alleged harassment campaign, the alleged harm to commercial interests of QMUL are settled at this point?

 

[Gijs]

Good news but not over yet, i think they are going to the Upper Tribunal ! White and Chalder are very aggressive against ME/CFS patiënts their behaviour is abnormal for 'real' scientists.

 

[Dolphin]

I think it likely they will try to appeal, but given the history its probably only a matter of time, even if the appeal is allowed to go ahead, before they have to release the data.

As for evidence that the treatments do not work, there have been three large government reviews, in Belgium and Holland, and they found patients are no better off with CBT/GET.

Dutch? I can only think of Belgian report.

 

[Valentijn]

What's the difference between a regular appeal and an appeal on the point of law only?

A "point of law" is contrasted with a "point of fact." The facts accepted by the court (or not accepted), cannot be appealed now. They can only appeal if the law has been interpreted incorrectly, or the wrong law applied.

It's pretty rare for judges to mess up on points of law, and in this case they seem to have explained their application of the law very thoroughly. It also sounds like an appeal wouldn't be automatically accepted - they have to convince the Tribunal or a higher court that there's a problem before the appeal would be accepted.

I'm guessing this would be pretty expensive again, regarding legal fees. Even attempting to appeal would also be a largely futile endeavor, given that the law is pretty clear and QMUL's arguments regarding the laws have been extremely flimsy.

We need to remember that it is QMUL footing the bill and responsible for going through the hassle of the appeal - not Peter White or the PACE researchers in general. The only reason QMUL took it this far is because White & Co likely portrayed the facts of the situation in a pretty inaccurate manner, and maybe due to the British academic habit of believing everything said by the "right" people.

But now there is a judge telling QMUL how completely stupid their arguments are, so they might value that authority over Peter White, especially when combined with actual rational explanations and evidence. So I think it's very unlikely that QMUL will continue to risk its reputation with even attempting further appeals.

 

[Sean]

At some point the institution has to cut its losses, and cut loose any rogue academics.

For QMUL this would be a good point to do so.

 

[sarah darwins]

How on earth can they justify turning down a request for a tiny amount of data underpinning a graph that was already in the public domain, then turn round and demolish exactly the same arguments, posed in both desperation and anger, against a claim that amounted to pretty much everything? It really doesn't make any sense. Does anyone in the ICO actually talk to each other?

@Valerie Eliot Smith can no doubt explain things with precision, but my understanding is that this is a tribunal, chaired by a judge, which is there to act as an independent arbiter in disputed cases. I think the tribunal is part of HM Courts & Tribunals Service, not part of the ICO. They're separate things, which is as it should be for an appeals body.

I think you're referring to the refusal of the FOI request made by Graham, which has not been appealed and was therefore only ruled on by the ICO.