I was going to make this point.
They were allowed refuse to release some data as it would cost over £450. It would certainly have cost less than this. So doesn't look like money was the reason they wouldn't release the data.
-
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.
QMUL spent £250,000 in legal fees to prevent the release of the PACE trial data
- Thread starter Cheshire
- Start date
They were allowed refuse to release some data as it would cost over £450. It would certainly have cost less than this. So doesn't look like money was the reason they wouldn't release the data.
Large Donner
Senior Member
- Messages
- 866
£250,000 and counting!
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
Good point. I don't think that particular claim was made for this specific FOI request, but it was definitely made in relation to other requests for PACE data. Clearly money isn't an issue for them, when it comes to protecting their interests!
Last edited:
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
I think their primary justification might be that they were protecting the alleged interests of the trial participants.
Last edited:
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
Good point. Businesses claim back VAT for most business expenses, so it would probably not be paid in these circumstances.
eastcoast12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 136
- Location
- Long Island ny
So let me get this strait and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. So they spent £5m of the publics money do to research who's data is legally owned by the public. They used that money on a sham study. When people started to call them out on their bullshit they decided to spend £1/4 m to block access to data that they don't even own.
This whole thing is so fucking bizarre. I guess they really are trying to save their reps and careers at this point. Wouldn't it be easier to just say " hey guys, we're done studying cfs/me. We can't find any conclusive evidence so we're on to something else". They save face and more importantly save us from their antiquated ideas about psychology.
Fuck me man. What a bunch of narcissistic moraless deuche bags. I wonder how they sleep at night and even though I have always thought to myself "I wouldn't wish this on anyone", I think it would be epic if one of those pricks if not all of them come down with cfs/me
This whole thing is so fucking bizarre. I guess they really are trying to save their reps and careers at this point. Wouldn't it be easier to just say " hey guys, we're done studying cfs/me. We can't find any conclusive evidence so we're on to something else". They save face and more importantly save us from their antiquated ideas about psychology.
Fuck me man. What a bunch of narcissistic moraless deuche bags. I wonder how they sleep at night and even though I have always thought to myself "I wouldn't wish this on anyone", I think it would be epic if one of those pricks if not all of them come down with cfs/me
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
And the cost of the ICO review and QMUL's legal submissions to that. And that's just for this one request.
Or students pay with their fees. I would be surprised if industry would pay for something like that unless it was a drug company trying to create a legal precedent to avoid the release of data relating to their products.
We should also remember that these are just the legal fees they don't include the time of White, Anderson, thornton, Chalder, Rawle, Smallcome, Pallant, Parker and Robinson all of whom are public employees whose time and I assume travel is paid for by tax payers. Just the attendance and preparation costs of 4 professors will have added up to quite a bit of additional money.
As I understand it businesses claim back VAT for things that help them produce products and services on which they then charge VAT so I'm not sure how it works with universities who have a special status of non-regulated charities. I think they charge VAT on some research services but not on student fees?
We shouldn't forget that this isn't White spending the money but it is QMUL who are spending it. I assume to spend such large amounts on legal fees will need a high level sign off.
I would assume that Prof Simon Gaskell who is the principle should be authorizing such spending and as such he should be held responsible and we should be petitioning the department of education and the council of QMUL calling for him to be sacked.
In the worst case he has failed to investigate what went on with PACE and taken them at their word but in the worst case he has looked at the trial and how the spun the results and thought that represented a considerable risk to QMULs reputation and hence funded a legal case. Either way it looks bad for the institution.
I think students at QMUL should also be aware of how the university is spending money in times of austerity and budget cuts.
AndyPR
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,516
The subject matter wouldn't neccesarily be completely new to them http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/queen-mary-student-union-the-print.43944/ if anybody has any spare energy to contact them.
Also, https://www.qmsu.org/ or www.facebook.com/Queen-Mary-Students-Union-QMSU-129509803775801
I assume that these are just the legal costs for their appeal. I expect they have additional legal costs for lawyers who are trying to stop the release of the data promised to PLOS on the publication of the economics paper. When they are prepared to spend so much on lawyers its not surprising that PLOS are caving in.
CFS_for_19_years
Hoarder of biscuits
- Messages
- 2,396
- Location
- USA
No, it's not easier for them to stop studying cfs/me. Their careers now have a foothold and they are invested in more studies that are set to preach the same sermon of GET and CBT. It would be much harder for them to find something worthwhile to do with their time.
As long as someone publishes their studies, they have nothing to worry about. Even null results will get published, not that anyone except us will take notice (2.5 year follow-up on PACE.)
Roughly 16,000 students at QMUL. which works out at about £144m / year income.
2015 financial statements record their total income as £378m:
£71m Funding Body Grants
£164m Tuition Fees and Education Contracts
£93m Research grants and contracts
£48m Other income
£623,000 Endowment and investment income
So very roughly it looks like maybe about 60% of their income comes from grants and contracts (which will probably mostly be public money, but a fair proportion will be private money) and the rest from tuition fees (i.e. paid for by the students). That rough breakdown is fairly typical of higher education institutions I think. QMUL isn't particularly large though, the university I work for, University of Nottingham, had 43,765 students in 2013, and total income of £593m.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Oh yeah... I'd forgotten about the PLoS battle. Coyne was saying that they were thoroughly lawyered up on that too.
AndyPR
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,516
Hi @JohntheJack , would you have a link to the FOI request that you used please?