• 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.

ICO rules in favour of QMUL/PDW over FOI request 'Timing of changes to PACE Trial recovery criteria'

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
academic freedom should outweigh the FoI act

Edit:
(The court after the ICO's office ruling) basically said that academic freedom should outweigh the FoI act


(the first quote made it look like it was user9876's opinion)

It's seems an error to assume that the two are at odds.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Edit:
(The court after the ICO's office ruling) basically said that academic freedom should outweigh the FoI act


(the first quote made it look like it was user9876's opinion)

It's seems an error to assume that the two are at odds.

They shouldn't be but the court was ruling on the release of information rather than an academics right to publish on controversial subjects.
 

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
'All too often such requests are likely to be motivated by a desire not to have information but a desire to divert and improperly undermine the research and publication process – in football terminology – playing the man and not the ball'

This is another bit of disgraceful mud-slinging. If the trial is sound then it is not going to be undermined. And you cannot undermine a process of non-publication!
How can you play the ball if they won't release the bloody ball to be played with?
 

anciendaze

Senior Member
Messages
1,841
You might have more luck if you moved the focus from the patients (who "everyone knows are crazy") to the UK taxpayers who funded this exercise. We know that NHS doctors who thought patients had "CFS" referred 3158 patients as possible participants, researchers then whittled this down to about 900 they wanted, of which only 640 actually completed the trial. We see evidence in study documents that some number of patients were excluded because of organic conditions, though it is not clear how this took place.

When we look at the economic analysis of PACE we do not find anything about the cost of testing for organic conditions. What has happened is that the PACE study externalized major costs to the rest of the NHS. On the surface they are still following the traditional approach of never bothering to test patients who have received a psychiatric label for possible organic diseases. At the same time, we see that PACE authors are highly critical of NHS doctors in the matter of diagnosis. They estimate 30% of CFS diagnoses are in error, though they believe ordinary NHS doctors are twice as likely to miss psychiatric diagnoses as to make such in error. (The authors themselves are assumed to be infallible.) This still leaves the number of erroneous diagnoses involving organic disease at about 10% -- even taking them at their word. Correcting 300 diagnoses in the PACE study is about as big a problem as finding the alleged responders. This testing shifted to the NHS is a major unreported cost of doing the study.

BTW: about 1/3 of all participants declined to perform the 6-minute walk test either before or after treatment. This means roughly 200 of the 640 were counted as participants even though they provided no objective data at all. I think this illustrates the authors' contempt for objective science.
 

anciendaze

Senior Member
Messages
1,841
Just to clarify my position on exclusionary conditions for "CFS", I want to emphasize the bizarre nature of current medical practice, which stops testing for treatable organic illness, in the absence of convenient clinical signs, as soon as a psychiatric label has been applied. One might call this attitude schizophrenic, if one were in a position to apply such labels to those practicing this kind of medicine.

When a group classifies every possible physiological abnormality as an exclusionary condition you can be certain they have defined the problem as functional mental illness in a way that cannot be falsified. This places them outside the scope of mainstream science, not that they are about to admit this.

When they also insist that it is pointless to test for these exclusionary conditions, you know they have decided to simply write off some percentage of patients in order to keep costs down. We don't even know what that percentage may be, though I would be surprised if it were ever less than 10%. This is a value judgment on the human beings involved. The catch here is that you can't easily trace the malpractice to a particular individual who ignored clear signs.

I am particularly concerned about neglect of organic illness which is not merely treatable, but completely curable. Based on other's experience with patients exhibiting unexplained fatigue I would say it is more probable than not that some of the 3158 patients referred for treatment of "CFS" had undiagnosed syphilis, which might not be found for years, after the effects had become devastating. That number is also enough to turn up a fair number of undiagnosed cases of TB or hepatitis. Pulmonary disease in general typically produces fatigue.

Neurological problems like absence seizures or MS can also result in substantial fatigue. (There is a fairly broad region of diagnostic uncertainty for MS or rheumatological diseases like RA, which means that questionable cases should be revisited over a period of years. Does this take place when there is a psychiatric label affixed?) Early stages of slow cancers regularly produce long-lasting unexplained fatigue, catching these early can make the difference between life and death. Really difficult causes of unexplained fatigue, like viral myocarditis, may only be discovered at autopsy.

This above is all connected with non-controversial pathologies, separate from chronic Lyme disease (borreliosis), babesiosis, bartonellosis, toxoplasmosis, etc.

Failure to test for such treatable pathologies necessarily condemns some number of individuals to permanent disability and/or death. Failure to measure the cost of avoiding such malpractice is a strong indication that you have no intention of actually doing anything necessary to avoid it.
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Just to clarify my position on exclusionary conditions for "CFS", I want to emphasize the bizarre nature of current medical practice, which stops testing for treatable organic illness, in the absence of convenient clinical signs, as soon as a psychiatric label has been applied. One might call this attitude schizophrenic, if one were in a position to apply such labels to those practicing this kind of medicine.

And if one had the mistaken - but widespread - belief that schizophrenia was the same as dual-/multiple personality.
 

anciendaze

Senior Member
Messages
1,841
And if one had the mistaken - but widespread - belief that schizophrenia was the same as dual-/multiple personality.
I was referring to dissociation, which is a strong indication of schizophrenia, without the development of complete alternate personalities. What goes on in one mental compartment is independent of knowledge contained in others.
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
I've just read through all this - utterly shameful from the ICO.

Maybe I'm fooling myself about the likelihood of making progress with this stuff, but I am now thinking that things like this will be helpful for us as historical documents illustrating how badly treated ME/CFS was.

In the supporting document Mr Matthees says:

If any general or specific allegation or
suggestion is made about harassment or intentions, I would appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Yet it seems that there wasn't any correspondence from the ICO which gave him a chance to challenge the absurd claims that underpinned their condemnation of his behaviour as vexatious. It's like a prosecution which takes place behind closed doors and where you need to submit a defence in advance and without being able to see the case being made against you.

The supporting document actually did pre-empt some of the smears, but was just ignored without any respectable justification.
 
Last edited:

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
(In case anyone missed it)
The journalist, David Tuller DrPH, has today posted a substantial piece on the PACE Trial:

TRIAL BY ERROR: The Troubling Case of the PACE Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study
http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/21/trial-by-error-i/

There's an introduction and summary at the start if you don't want to take on the whole thing.

It's being discussed in this PR thread:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...he-pace-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-study.40664/

ME Network have also posted their own summary piece:
http://www.meaction.net/2015/10/21/david-tuller-tears-apart-pace-trial/