[ICO = Information Commissioner's Office. PDW=Peter Denton White, lead principal investigator of the £5 million PACE Trial. QMUL = Queen Mary University of London, where he is based]
Just got the following e-mail today:
Just got the following e-mail today:
New updates for the request 'Timing of changes to PACE Trial recovery criteria'
============================================================================
Mr Matthees added an annotation (10 April 2015)
"In response to QMUL's refusal to grant this FOI request after an internal review, I submitted a complaint to the ICO. I sent the correspondence from th..."
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/timing_of_changes_to_pace_trial#comment-59096
Mr Matthees left an annotation (10 April 2015)
In response to QMUL's refusal to grant this FOI request after an internal review, I submitted a complaint to the ICO. I sent the correspondence from the whatdotheyknow.com thread and the following supporting document, which is similar to what was posted there, but for completeness I have placed it online for others to view:
https://sites.google.com/site/pacefoir/FOIR2_online-correspondence.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/pacefoir/FOIR2_supporting-document.pdf
Unfortunately, QMUL managed to persuade the ICO case worker to rule that this request was "vexatious":
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2015/1043579/fs_50558352.pdf
I did not expect such difficulty getting simple answers about a publicly funded clinical trial. Due to health-related limitations and other commitments, I doubt that I can sustain the time and effort required to pursue this particular case further myself. The public should not have to depend on a First-tier Tribunal just for a chance at getting clarification about trial methodology.
The disappointing ICO decision notice was emailed to me on the 18th March 2015. I have since written the following response for the record, addressing the main assertions and conclusions in the decision notice (which in my opinion were based on misguided assumptions and an imbalanced consideration of the evidence).
https://sites.google.com/site/pacefoir/FOIR2_response-to-ICO-decision-notice.pdf
Last edited: