• 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.

Breaking News: PLOS One issues Expression of Concern for PACE trial paper

deleder2k

deleder2k

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
What does this mean? Could it pave the way for a retraction? This has been going on for a long time, and one would think that the authors has been given many chances to deliver what PLOS request. If they fail to comply now, don't they have to retract it?

Is this a game changer? I guess this doesn't happen every day
 
Last edited:
M

me/cfs 27931

Guest
Messages
1,294
PACE authors said:
As such we are surprised by and question the decision by the journal to issue this Expression of Concern.
Click to expand...
Surprise-Poop.jpg
 
R

RogerBlack

Senior Member
Messages
902
deleder2k said:
What does this mean? Could it pave the way for a retraction? This has been going on for a long time, and one would think that the authors has been given many chances to deliver what PLOS request. If they fail to comply now, don't they have to retract it?
Click to expand...

It seems not.
There is no 'we will retract the paper if the authors do not comply' type language.
They allowed them a right of response, and were not overly critical of that response.

Is it great that they've done this - yes.
However, it's moderately far from a forcible retraction.

In many ways tthe important thing isn't the warning text. It's the fact it's there at all.
 
Last edited:
deleder2k

deleder2k

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
At least we have some momentum now. Hopefully more researchers that are new to the PACE controversy will get interested and take action.
 
V

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
It's a meaningful escalation from PLOS One. It's also a slap in the face to the PACE team. On both counts, it serves as a provocation and a warning. Is PACE and QMUL happy to remain with a large pink stain on one of their papers, or will they review their policies? How much public scrutiny of their data-hiding policies are they prepared to weather, since this is a big story in the academic community, and might even make mainstream media due to it involving PACE?

trishrhymes said:
The QMUL response is weird. Are they suffering from memory loss. Surely they already accepted the FOI tribunal ruling that they should release some of the PACE data. So what's different about this data?
Click to expand...
They believe that if they repeat something enough, people will believe it is true. This tactic has failed for them in the past, but they keep trying, which suggests some form of disconnection from reality. And it is very disrespectful of the intelligence of, well, everyone.
 
Keela Too

Keela Too

Sally Burch
Messages
900
Location
N.Ireland
Esther12 said:
It feels like we're trying to build momentum rolling a rock up a mountain... we're still getting it up there, but it's not getting easier!
Click to expand...

Brilliant analogy and I agree about the huge resistance

But just think, with such a massive boulder and such a steep climb what happens once the tipping point at the summit is achieved.

Are we nearly there yet?
 
Stewart

Stewart

Senior Member
Messages
291
user9876 said:
The MRC's head of governance supported the PACE data being kept secret but then she also dismissed concerns over outcome switching and other methodological issues.

The question for the MRC may be if PACE is wrong to share why are others sharing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right and that the MRC would continue to publicly support the PACE team. I'd just like to see them have to go on the record on this point, publicly stating that they don't have an issue with the data from MRC funded research only being selectively shared with uncritical scientists who've been vetted by the original research team. That's a position that would drive a coach and horses through the MRC's existing data sharing policies, and undoubtedly raise a lot of eyebrows...
 
Snow Leopard

Snow Leopard

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
If they want to have the EoC removed, they're actually going to have to share their data with the likes of Coyne, or Davis/Levin/Racaniello et al., who by the way, are more than willing to comply with the "safeguards regarding confidentiality of the data".
 
Last edited:
S

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Snow Leopard said:
...they're actually going to have to share their data with the likes of Coyne, or Davis/Levin/Racaniello et al., who by the way are more than willing to comply with the "safeguards regarding confidentiality of the data".
Click to expand...
Like to see them try arguing that people of that calibre and standing are 'just an abusive delusional anti-science minority rabble, who only want the data to identify and harass other patients'.

That would be fun. :)
 
K

Keith Geraghty

Senior Member
Messages
491
....their surprise is surprising - dont they recall the Information Tribunal Court case, the £220k spent on laywers to defend their position, losing, and the ruling of the FOI Tribunal. Amnesia or total defiance in the face of the obvious. Do note Prof McCrone who did the economic analysis used hypothetical scenarios to decide cost-effectiveness and was one of the 19 authors who decided to write a response to my Jr of Health Psych editorial on PACE with these words:

"we suggest that Dr Geraghty’s views are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the PACE trial; these are corrected."

eh, time to get your own house in order.
 
trishrhymes

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
Perhaps someone should print off all the articles published recently criticising PACE and tie them with a nice big bow and present them to the University.

Something they can be really proud of.

Oh, and a bill for the £5 million wasted on PACE and the £250,000 wasted defending the data secrecy, to be spent on real ME research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.