Can you imagine a drug company not being able to provide proof of safety for a drug they want to put on the market.
Data proving safety on much of psychopsychiatry is simply absent, and especially psychogenic psychiatry. I personally think psychogenic psychiatry is most likely damaging in a high percentage of cases, but proving it is another issue.
They can just deflect by saying you have no proof its doing harm. One of the issues with psychopsychiatry is they get a general exemption from critical scrutiny. I think this is a big blind spot in medicine. You are asking a field of psychiatry to be rigorous and logical which rests on poor data, poor conclusions, and fallacious reasoning, and is treated in many respects as dogma not science. Critics have been trying to hammer that point home since the late 19th century!
You can ask for specific data, but if you ask them to interpret it for you they will most likely dismiss the request. Its up to you to take data and demonstrate a conclusion, or some other team of scientists, statisticians, etc.
So we need to select highly specific data in a request, and if it does not exist then the request would be vexatious. They will almost certainly capitalize on that.
However we can ask public questions and ask about why data is not available. If as a result we learn about data not published, just as we did about fitness data when they finally did publish 4 years later, then we have grounds for an FOI at that point. Once they admit to the existence of data we can request it. If the data is not admitted to we can ask why it is not available outside of an FOI.
One way to do this is to look at deterioration in the 6mwt data and ask why this was not interpreted as harm. I think a good place to start would be to reread Tom Kindlon's harms paper, and then go back to the PACE trial publications. Indeed someone could write a follow-up paper, if the evidence warrants it, to show harm based on the released data. Then we can ask more pointed questions.
Meanwhile would could use all the anonymized data, not just a subset of data. If it comes out in drips and drabs it might be harder to compile it properly.
I am particularly interested in the high and low outcomes, that is claims of recovery and how many deteriorated. They need to start by releasing the data requested by James Coyne. There is a lot of data still kept secret.