Invisible Illness Awareness Week 2016: Our Voices Need to Be Heard
Never heard of Invisible Illness Awareness Week? You're not alone. Jody Smith sheds a little light to make it more visible
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Tribunal orders QMUL to release anonymised PACE data 16 Aug 2016

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Sasha, Aug 16, 2016.

  1. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,789
    Likes:
    34,217
    UK
    lycaena, leela, Yogi and 60 others like this.
  2. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,985
    :):):)

    Thank you, Mr Matthees.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
    leela, Yogi, ME_guy and 30 others like this.
  3. Valentijn

    Valentijn Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,281
    Likes:
    45,823
    The full decision is at http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1854/Queen Mary University of London EA-2015-0269 (12-8-16).PDF

    As a brief recap, the ICO had agreed that the PACE data should be released. Queen Mary University of London, where PACE was registered, disagreed and took the case to a Tribunal. The Tribunal has now sided with the ICO, and held that the data should be released.

    QMUL can still appeal, but it is extremely unlikely that their appeal would be accepted. And hopefully QMUL doesn't want to go spending more money to support some "researchers" hiding publicly-funded data anyhow :p
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
    leela, Yogi, L'engle and 33 others like this.
  4. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,789
    Likes:
    34,217
    UK
    @Valerie Eliot Smith - do you know how long QMUL have to make an appeal (on legal grounds only, now)?
     
    leela, L'engle, mango and 6 others like this.
  5. AndyPandy

    AndyPandy Making the most of it

    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes:
    6,666
    Australia
    Oh frabjous day! Thanks to all who fought so hard for this.

    :balloons:
     
    leela, ME_guy, L'engle and 25 others like this.
  6. daisybell

    daisybell Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes:
    7,362
    New Zealand
    Some strong statements by the tribunal in the judgement!
     
    MEMum, leela, L'engle and 16 others like this.
  7. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes:
    23,193
    It's an interesting read. The tribunal members were not impressed by claims about risk of identification or the claim that criticism of the trial and FOI requests were due to a campaign with malicious intent. The words "wild speculations" were used at some point.
     
    MEMum, leela, SDSue and 28 others like this.
  8. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,583
    Likes:
    18,182
    QMUL spend 200k on lawyers for this court case and they still couldn't win or provide a convincing argument.

    I think they have limited grounds for appeal but they clearly are willing to spend vast amounts of public money on keeping the data private. I wonder if the head of QMUL will issue a statement as to why he thinks it is necessary to spend such amounts of money on this and what checks he has made into the claims of White prior to authorizing the expenditure.
     
    MEMum, leela, justy and 20 others like this.
  9. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes:
    14,549
    Monmouth, UK
    Assuming QMUL doesn't appeal (or its appeal fails) the data then released should allow analysis to see how many people recovered according the the original protocol (ie before the authors moved the goalposts). It's highly unlikely to be anywhere near the 22% claimed by PACE (a figure approvingly repeated in the UK's House of Lords) and should give patients a more accurate estimate of the curative power of CBT and GET.

    The State (and taxpayers) ultimately fund clinical research for the benefit of patients, so it's important patients get accurate, reliable information on the effectiveness of any tested treatments. And researchers should not, in my view, go to such lengths to hide their data from scrutiny: it might be in their interests, it's not in the interests of patients.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
    MEMum, lycaena, leela and 48 others like this.
  10. Solstice

    Solstice Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
    Likes:
    2,066
    Oh joy.
     
    leela, mango, Bob and 8 others like this.
  11. adreno

    adreno PR activist

    Messages:
    4,843
    Likes:
    11,028
    Fantastic news!
     
    MEMum, leela, mango and 7 others like this.
  12. Richard7

    Richard7 Senior Member

    Messages:
    536
    Likes:
    957
    Australia
    I think the best bit may be the bottom of page 36 and top of 37 where they state

    ... "Professor Chalder's evidence when she accepts that unpleasant things have been said to and about PACE researchers only, but that no threats have been made to researchers or participants. The highest she could put it was that some participants stated that they had been made to feel "uncomfortable" as a result of their contact with and treatment from her, not because of their participation in the trial per se. "

    Now if only the journalists convinced that we pose a threat to researchers could read this, and remember it next time the story comes around.
     
    MEMum, leela, Roy S and 29 others like this.
  13. TiredSam

    TiredSam The wise nematode hibernates

    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes:
    21,540
    Germany
    I have just made myself a cup of coffee, and am settling down to read every word of the 48 page judgement. Bliss :smug:.
     
    MEMum, leela, justy and 31 others like this.
  14. Stewart

    Stewart Senior Member

    Messages:
    291
    Likes:
    3,432
    Don't forget section (iv) of the majority decision (on page 40). "It was clear that (Professor Anderson's) assessment of activist behaviour was, in our view, grossly exaggerated and the only actual evidence was that an individual at a seminar had heckled Professor Chalder."

    It's now on record that when the PACE lobby were asked to produce evidence of a campaign of harassment, the best they could manage was an isolated incident of heckling. This decision should be *very* helpful the next time anyone needs to rebut the SMC's wild claims about "ME militants"
     
    MEMum, lycaena, leela and 50 others like this.
  15. Cheshire

    Cheshire Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,121
    Likes:
    8,999
     
    justy, L'engle, Sea and 20 others like this.
  16. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes:
    23,193
    If the "campaign of harassment" is really "an individual heckled Chalder at a seminar", I wonder what PACE's 22% recovered claim will turn out to be? #nullfield
     
    MEMum, leela, justy and 22 others like this.
  17. Richard7

    Richard7 Senior Member

    Messages:
    536
    Likes:
    957
    Australia
    thanks @Stewart, I read that when I was skimming the pdf but could not find it when it came time to write a comment.

    and it is kind of genius isn't it. On record, in front of people who cross-examine them all that nonsense just evaporates. I wish we had a transcript or video.

    And journalists who a) gave a damn, and b) were upset about being mislead.
     
    MEMum, leela, justy and 18 others like this.
  18. Skippa

    Skippa Anti-BS

    Messages:
    841
    Likes:
    2,960
    How embarrassing.

    Time to end this madness.

    Good work to all involved!

    Shame on QMUL.
     
    leela, L'engle, MeSci and 6 others like this.
  19. Cheshire

    Cheshire Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,121
    Likes:
    8,999
    About Mr Matthees concern that QMUL restrict their sharing to friendly searchers team:

     
    MEMum, lycaena, leela and 30 others like this.
  20. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,523
    Likes:
    35,227
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    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.
     
    MEMum, leela, justy and 20 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page