Tom Kindlon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,734
For completeness, here is another scan somebody sent me.Another scan.
http://www.filedropper.com/paceappealdecision
I don't know how good a scan it is but I was able to copy all the text in one go.
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.
For completeness, here is another scan somebody sent me.Another scan.
http://www.filedropper.com/paceappealdecision
I don't know how good a scan it is but I was able to copy all the text in one go.
It was a majority decision, which seems to suggest that one of the three tribunal members was against us and it could have been a close thing!
It was a unanimous decision except for one point. One tribunal member believes there is a less than probable but more than remote possibility of identifying participants.The reasons for their decision are given from page 39 onwards, the reasons why the one tribunal member disagreed are given on page 42. The difference between the two, the reasons for release are detailed while the reasons against release are, in the main, one sentence long, hopefully indicates how much weight will be given to them in the future.
My thoughts exactly.Wow, I hope they took some comfort from that fact that they were in the right place to get help with their paranoia, apparently CBT can be very effective as long as the patient is willing to accept treatment.
I recall they were afraid of the possibility at one stage of their trial paticipants being discouraged from being involved or having people sign up to a trial with the hidden intent of sabotaging it. Not that there was ever any evidence that pointed towards that being a possibility.
I recall three government reviews. None were favourable. One of the countries had two studies, I think that was Belgium but I could be wrong. These are from years ago.Dutch? I can only think of Belgian report.
Review which data? These are two separate events, they didn't need the PACE data to be able to amend their treatment recommendations, that was based on looking at what symptom criteria each study used.Why before they review the data? This confused me some, am I missing something?
Valerie answered this earlierA few questions. If there's no given time limit for the eventual appeal, or release of the data, how is this handled in practice? Can they drag out things indefinitely? Are there actually any sanctions if they don't release the data after this ruling?
I also thought that I'd seen a time limit of 30 days to release the data if no appeal is made but can't remember who said that.It might be a couple of months before the data is released (if they don't appeal) but it could be sooner or later than that. There's no way of predicting, unfortunately.
QMUL will need to seek permission to appeal (on a point of law only - it's not an automatic right of appeal), firstly from this Tribunal but, if that is refused, they can appeal directly to the next level for permission ie. the Upper Tribunal. It's confusing, I know. This post gives an overview of how it works: https://valerieeliotsmith.com/2015/12/16/foia-a-briefing-note-how-many-pace-requests/
Much like the research itself then.said or done which contradicted their own claims
It might be a couple of months before the data is released (if they don't appeal) but it could be sooner or later than that. There's no way of predicting, unfortunately.
QMUL will need to seek permission to appeal (on a point of law only - it's not an automatic right of appeal), firstly from this Tribunal but, if that is refused, they can appeal directly to the next level for permission ie. the Upper Tribunal. It's confusing, I know. This post gives an overview of how it works: https://valerieeliotsmith.com/2015/12/16/foia-a-briefing-note-how-many-pace-requests/
Its possible but difficult, time consuming and super risky, especially since it would require expert help. Given the level of scrutiny by many scientists I think this would be found out. So I think it unlikely we might see this. I also doubt its in their nature to do so ... they love to re-characterize labels and definitions, but are very careful in that they say exactly what they are doing (unless they are working on omitting stuff like fitness data) and its up to the reader to figure it out.How possible could it be that the data that is shared is forged in order to match the conclusions of the actual paper? How can one verify that?
Thank you @alex3619 great answer.Its possible but difficult, time consuming and super risky, especially since it would require expert help. Given the level of scrutiny by many scientists I think this would be found out. So I think it unlikely we might see this. I also doubt its in their nature to do so ... they love to re-characterize labels and definitions, but are very careful in that they say exactly what they are doing (unless they are working on omitting stuff like fitness data) and its up to the reader to figure it out.
Please note, I'm no lawyer/have no law training. As I understand it, a point of law would be a situation where the law has been incorrectly applied. In this situation it has become less likely to be used as an argument, due to the Tribunal confirming that the ruling to release the data had been correct in the first place, all the 'evidence' that QMUL put forward wasn't enough to convince the tribunal an error had been made.For those of us who aren't lawyers, what would a "point of law" look like in a case such as this?
Basically that the law was interpreted incorrectly, that the wrong law was applied, or an additional law should have been considered. One point of law they've already unsuccessfully argued to the ICO and Tribunal, is that a newer rule (regarding consideration of financial harm to the institution if data is released) should be applied retroactively.For those of us who aren't lawyers, what would a "point of law" look like in a case such as this?
It won't happen. Other researchers (co-authors on various papers) have had at least some access to the data, and they don't have their careers depending upon PACE. So they wouldn't be willing to risk criminal charges to help the PACE authors cover up any such alterations. And it's very unlikely the PACE authors would risk it either.How possible could it be that the data that is shared is forged in order to match the conclusions of the actual paper? How can one verify that?
This has been a complex case and the Tribunal’s decision is lengthy. We are studying the decision carefully and considering our response, taking into account the interests of trial participants and the research community.
Chortle.
Maybe someone should let them know that the Tribunal already took those interests into account. The only rational response is to release the data, as ordered by the TribunalQMUL said:This has been a complex case and the Tribunal’s decision is lengthy. We are studying the decision carefully and considering our response, taking into account the interests of trial participants and the research community.