The PACE data have been released (9 Sept 2016)

[Large Donner]

I strongly suspect that a good percentage of even criminal conspiracies are due to stupidity, not intent. Of course a good percentage are entirely deliberate as well.

There you have just done it again . If its a criminal conspiracy by definition its deliberate.

My point is that I am trying to divorce the unhelpful notion of....

I am using a broader definition.

.....for the purpose of furthering discussion on the potential of proving deliberate intent to cover up, obfuscate and ignore potential harms to people by means of defrauding of public funds to furthur ones own career standing and probably financial remunerations by more than two people at anyone time.

Also it is helpful to note where "broader definitions" have their foundations and whose interests changing language actually is.

The invention of "CFS" is one example.

 

[alex3619]

If its a criminal conspiracy by definition its deliberate.

Not so. This is an unjustified assumption. It might be deemed deliberate, but that does not make it so. Its like saying we have a psychosomatic disorder because the definitions in the DSM deem it so. I reject both claims.

 

[alex3619]

for the purpose of furthering discussion on the potential of proving deliberate intent to cover up, obfuscate and ignore potential harms to people by means of defrauding of public funds to furthur ones own career standing and probably financial remunerations by more than two people at anyone time.

... and my point is that ethical violations are much easier to prove, and will have much the same consequences from our point of view. Its almost impossible to prove criminal conspiracy. We need MUCH more evidence than we have. Claiming criminal conspiracy without evidence can itself be a legal violation.

 

[Large Donner]

The big issue with conspiracy is proving it. Not suggesting, not implicating, proving. In the case of the improper use of statistics in PACE we have a chance to prove scientific fraud. Most other claims are not provable at this point in time.

Fraud on the public purse though alex. If it was an individual providing fraudulent medical evidence that they had fabricated in order to get disability benefits they would be in jail. If two people conspired with such fraudulent medical evidence to get disability benefits it would be the criminal definition of conspiracy to commit a crime.

PACE investigators study has lead to claims that the majority of people improve with their favoured treatments and many recover. That is all deliberate lies. This has shaped policy in an area that was claimed to be definitive to examine whether such treatments can be safely used. They cant because that has not been proved.

Would any jury in their right minds accept the defense that such acclaimed and qualified academics didn't see the flaws in their own studies which lead to such conclusions?

 

[Large Donner]

Large Donner said: ↑

If its a criminal conspiracy by definition its deliberate

.

Not so. This is an unjustified assumption. It might be deemed deliberate, but that does not make it so. Its like saying we have a psychosomatic disorder because the definitions in the DSM deem it so. I reject both claims.

So if two people are found guilty of criminal conspiracy you think it hasn't been deemed to be deliberate in order for them to be found guilty?

You think the judgement could mean "it was all a big accident and a big mistake but we still find you both guilty of conspiracy"?

 

[alex3619]

Fraud on the public purse though alex.

First, we have to prove fraud. Which I pointed out is very achievable if the issues with the calculation of "normal" meet the definition of scientific fraud. This can be pursued. I would like to see that done.

The rest is grey. We see a very dark grey, but a jury might see a very light grey and aquit.

Suggestive evidence, even strongly suggestive evidence, is not proof.

Further, the injured party would be part of UK government. Can you see them pursuing this in a court of law?

 

[alex3619]

So if two people are found guilty of criminal conspiracy you think it hasn't been deemed to be deliberate in order for them to be found guilty?

Yes, its been deemed, but that does not make it so in reality. If it were valid to do this, then most of us are psych cases, because the rules of DSM would deem it so. Its irrational.

 

[Large Donner]

Yes, its been deemed, but that does not make it so in reality. If it were valid to do this, then most of us are psych cases, because the rules of DSM would deemed it so. Its irrational.

You cannot change the legal definition of a conspiracy alex "because the judge or jury may get some cases wrong".

Also you were previously coming from the angle of intent and ability to prove intent. Your DSM example and intent and difficulty of proving intent are two completely different examples.

You also fail to acknowledge that you actually have stated that it could be shown that the PACE trial etc is a scientific fraud. Having acknowledged that, its no defense to use the DSM definitions issue against the fact that the PACE scientific fraud used the public purse and is making claims of safety when no such safety has been proved by their own evidence.

One does not need to go outside to semantic arguments of the poor use of DSM labeling.

Its their own evidence that can be used against them in the PACE investigators case. Its not like a psychiatrist being brought forward as an "independent expert" in a hearing and then going on to use the DSM rhetoric as "evidence".

 

[alex3619]

I am interested in what we can prove, not suspect. I want actionable evidence.

The burden of proof is lower in civil matters compared to criminal matters.

I am interested in anyone with legal knowledge commenting on the notion of injunctions. What if we could file legal injunctions against many of the people pushing poor research results as fact, and treating patients based on unproven theories? Could we do something like file an injunction against a particular doctor to cease and desist from treating CFS or ME patients?

 

[Large Donner]

Further, the injured party would be part of UK government. Can you see them pursuing this in a court of law?

If you are asking me if we would definitely win in court that's a different matter but also its not only the UK government who are the "injured party".

We are the main injured party, the patients, and we are the tax payer.

Its not the UK government who has forced release of the data, woken up the wider scientific community to the fraud and brought the PACE trial as close to a possible retraction as any paper could be if other retracted papers flaws are used as precedent.

Its us who has achieved that and mainly the people on this forum and other such forums.

Its down to us to do this its that simple it will only go as far as we push it is the harsh truth.

It could take another 10 or 20 years to see justice but unfortunately we can only do it by carrying on and by keeping on using our non patient advocates and recruiting more alongside us.

 

[Research 1st]

The big issue with conspiracy is proving it. Not suggesting, not implicating, proving.

Here's a starter:


Proving patients are harmed and die from reckless endangerment?

Easy, patients have nerve damage (neuropathy) infections (associated to neuropathy) and die (dead people are dead).

Proving UK physician researchers intentionally fabricate ME CFS medical hospital files to make
the ME CFS patient painted (to future doctors) as someone mentally ill?

Easy. Heaps of UK patients report this happens to them and have copies of their medical files as proof
of intentional collusion between doctors.

Proving they walked out of guideline meetings complaining the guidelines weren't psychologically focused enough?

Easy, it's on record.

Proving they claimed that diagnosing neurological disease in CFS isn't necessary and a TILT test would be unethical? (Exact opposite of good medical practice).

Easy, they said it on public radio.

Proving they aligned patients in the press by using journalists to claim patients are conspiracy theorists (repeatedly) & claim patients are more dangerous that the worlds most dangerous terrorists, animal rights extremists.

Easy, it's on record. If you did that to any other group of people, even once, you would struck off the medical register with immediate effect and probably taken for a full psychiatric evaluation, too dangerous to be near other patients as clearly they are suffering from delusional paranoia (comparing terrorists to patients).

Proving the people response for the above painted themselves as victims and the patients as mentally ill?

Easy, it's in various publications where they present themselves as martyrs to the cause, and patients is a conspiracy loon. They have published in various sources CFS patients turn down a treatment that works, but prefer a idea they have a mystery virus and poor little old me, gets so much flack for just trying to help. .

Collectively, this is organised victim shaming of a vulnerable disabled group of people, with no voice and no protection from sociopaths who have no guilt or shame about what they do.

NB: Newspaper stories slagging of patients have to be written, perfected, and then distributed to the press and the released at the perfect time, flooding the media with disinformation. This has happened, time and time again. It's not one rogue journalist, it's organised propaganda.

When patients can become more mobile, they will sue for tens of millions of pounds each (for being kept in the homes unable to leave), just as others sue for millions of pounds each for 'discrimination at work cases', I think you'll find a 56 yr old man emerging from his 1 bedroom flat after 36 years of neglect, will shock the media once the media doesn't have ONE SOURCE of information about ME CFS controlling the message Severe ME is 'Chronic Fatigue'.

And even more, when these people are found all over N America, Europe, Auz, and Nz - this will be the same as the day homosexuals can emerge from the shadows and are protected by law, at last, from hatred (not from doctors, but from all).

In ME CFS, the hatred is uniquely, from doctors, no one else, and, caused by them in the first place.

Doctors aren't meant to behave like that, and the BMA and GMC failed to stop them, so they are implicated too in failing to protect vulnerable children and adults from harm.

It's not one person, it's a system of corruption and not exactly difficult to 'prove', the guidelines themselves recommend the only evidence based treatment is scientific fraud (CBT/GET).

 

[alex3619]

Ethical violations are also outside of the legal system for the most part. They can still end careers. Look at what happened to Andrew Wakefield. The burden of proof for ethical violations is much lower as well. There are still many unanswered questions about the Wakefield issues, but it still ended his career.

Or look what at happened to Nigel Speight.

We need to be thinking outside criminal issues. That does not mean we couldn't use a whistleblower, or some really good hard evidence. Until we get that though its nearly all speculation - inference, not solid evidence. The big Tobacco history shows some of the issues. We really need internal documents and actual witnesses.

Let us prove what we can prove. Then see where that leads us.

We have no trouble showing this is bad research. We have to do more than that for there to be consequences. Though when its widely acknowledged this is bad research it would be interesting to see where they might get their grants from.

 

[alex3619]

We are the main injured party, the patients, and we are the tax payer.

You have to prove injury in a court of law. Are we harmed, yes. That is my opinion. Proof in a legal sense is much harder to demonstrate. There are so very many legal defenses built in for doctors that I doubt it would get anywhere in the UK.

The issue about possible fraudulent use of public moneys goes to government being harmed, not us. They represent the public in this issue.

Some years back many countries, including UK and Australia, created laws to prevent or limit litigation against the medical profession. I do not recall the specifics for the UK, but here in Australia you can only sue for direct medical and other costs. Destruction of lives does not count, though I do wonder if loss of income does. Even if it does, you would have to show the patient was pushed from working to not working from CBT/GET etc. for there to be a claim.

Let me be clear. I want to see an investigation into possible scientific fraud over the "normal" calculation, should the evidence warrant it. It might. Following a potential finding of fraud I would like to see a push for official government sanctions, in addition to any judicial sanctions. We are still a very long way from that happening though.

 

[Wolfiness]

Having a ministry of propaganda to spew hatred about the sort of 'person' someone with ME CFS is claimed to be, is an interesting political tactic to keep the proletariat oppressed.

Dictators tend to do this historically, to enable the annihilation of a chosen minority group - such as minority faiths.

Via media centric medical disinformation, no one generally cares ME CFS patients have been suffering and dying for decades, because we are considered below other people, because we are seen as deserving of our fate, as we chose to be lazy.

…

The BPS lobby ignoring thousands of biomedical research papers is intentional not an accident and is also a breach of the UK doctors code of conduct, upheld by the GMC, all doctors must abide by this. Additionally, UK doctors MUST keep their knowledge base up to date as part of 'good practice'.

I agree with you in principle but we have GOT TO STOP misrepresenting BPS's arguments because that just allows them to claim we're only against them because we've misunderstood them.

We are seen as deserving of our fate not because we 'chose to be lazy' but because, as Michael Sharpe famously said, we are psychologically affected people who refuse to accept we are psychologically affected. And they don't ignore the biomedical research papers so much as dismiss them as unreplicated or more commonly as 'effect not cause'. The MEA's "It's real. "It's physical." campaign isn't helping there because BPS are very careful never to deny the realness and physicalness and we're walking into a trap. The key dispute is whether symptoms are effect or cause, not whether they're physical or metaphysical.

 

[Snowdrop]

I think this is another angle that ought to be fully exploited on our behalf. That is, we should collect and verify all the stories we can on the harm done to people with ME and keep the heat up. It's easy to discount a few individuals but having many credible people come forward will be hard to ignore.

If a whistleblower is to be found (it's a horrible place to be and comes with no small personal risk) the person will come to have a conscience because they see the wholesale harm to innocent people and then the further victimisation of us as bullies (to the point where the WB and others around him/her have bought the BPS narrative up to that point) They will be angry about the deception and about being used toward an end they never fully realised or agreed to.

As an aside I'm mystified at the newcomers willing to drink the kool-aid when they have their whole careers ahead of them and they are likely to suffer more from the fall out than the perpetrators. Their fearless leaders must be highly charismatic in person.

We do need journalists to come forward expressing how they were corralled into a narrative where they accepted BS from 'experts' and how that was done.

Putting the truth out there (even if it's not the provable in court type) is important to changing the landscape and gaining traction on the road to making the bastards pay appropriately for what they have done.

 

[Large Donner]

Heres an issue....are the PACE investigators claiming that their therapies are safe currently and are they using evidence from the PACE trial to make that claim?

Yes or No?

What is the evidence that the therapies are safe?

I think now is the perfect time to put those questions to them in writing because the PACE trial has been published and that was one of the main reasons for the trial.

When it comes down to burden of proof in court I understand the difficulty involved but also there is the possible angle of putting the burden of proof onto them.

Perhaps we could do this by matching up what is said in their spin articles and interviews alongside video presentations to doctors etc and asking them to show us the fact that PACE actually shows that by virtue of its own evidence.

Remember we have just had one confirmation of protocol versus published differences being massive in terms of improvers.

The recovery data must be much more damning if they exaggerated the improves by almost 40% and that's using there own warped definitions.

 

[Snowdrop]

but here in Australia you can only sue for direct medical and other costs.

@alex3619

Is this true for class action suits as well?

 

[alex3619]

@alex3619

Is this true for class action suits as well?

Yes, but you would need expert legal opinion to determine what might happen. This all arose, if I recall correctly, when our Prime Minister (Howard?) and others became concerned at the rising cost of medical insurance that was driving many doctors out of the profession, even if they had done nothing wrong. Limiting litigation halted the increasing medical insurance costs.

This will not apply in all countries though. I have no idea if it applies in Canada. I doubt it applies in the US. Which raises the question, could we litigate against UK doctors in the US?

 

[eastcoast12]

Call it what it is. The pace group were conspiring to keep the data secret and falsified the results. It's a conspiracy.
The word gets a bad wrap because of the flat earth people and moon landing deniers. The word is simply used now a days to deflect and make people look like crazies. The media and HRC crew kept calling Bernie supported tin foil hat wearers cause they felt Bernie wasn't getting a fair chance. Well the emails proved the tin foil hat wearers were just making correct observations.
If it's a conspiracy it's a conspiracy regardless of intent

 

[alex3619]

I think now is the perfect time to put those questions to them in writing because the PACE trail has been published and that was one of the main reasons for the trial.

On this we agree. Its achievable to demonstrate failure here, though difficult. I think we need to go beyond just putting those questions to them, especially since they will deflect them or claim they are already answered. Public questions help, but we need a wider strategy.

I still think this requires a Royal Commission.