I stand by my measured speech in the Lords years ago made in good faith
http://bit.ly/2diIt2w & with best evidence then available
8:26 AM - 22 Sep 2016
Except he didn't look at the evidence that's clear to see he looked at second hand spin.
Peter White:
I have had to provide responses to Parliamentary Questions from members of both Houses of Parliament to allow them to understand the nature and findings of the PACE trial. In particular, I had to recently brief several members of the House of Lords so that they might speak in a critical debate about the Pace trial held on 6th February this year (exhibit C)
So are we expected to believe that he left out Winston from this briefing? How irresponsible as Winston was the main person who responded to Lady Mar.
I stand by my measured speech in the Lords years ago made in good faith
http://bit.ly/2diIt2w & with best evidence then available
Except the evidence was there is plain sight that they redefined the definition of recovery and one could be considered ill enough to enter the trial and both recovered at the same time.
He was well aware of this change of definitions after the trial had started because he even alluded to it in his speech that day. According to him it was ok because they hadn't seen the results yet. Too bad he couldn't understand the basic fraud that was claiming recovery whilst being disabled enough to qualify for the trial and the possibility this recovery definition could even apply to people who had got worse.
Such things can be described as evidence, whilst his stance can best be described as being ill informed whilst refusing to examine the evidence.
So if Winston didn't take the same stance as Lady Mar in terms of understanding the critiques of the trial etc and he wasn't in any contact with Peter White just what "best evidence available" did he use for his ill informed ramblings that day in the House?
This is a ludicrous explanation because it would only "work" if since the PACE trial a number of other trials had proved it wrong.
The whole point then and now is that PACE proved itself wrong and the evidence was right there infront of everyone all along.
He did not examine the critiques that have not changed since the time he was tasked to make his speech therefore he can make no claims of "best evidence"!