And who never declared them to patients when recruiting for the PACE trial, thus violating the patients' right to give informed consent as described in international medical ethics laws.Isn´t White the one with connections to insurance companies?
I agree completely. My comment on Coyne's blog:Firstly I think it should be private, secondly, isn't it the very opposite of a 'conflict' of interests?
What would the illness be conflicting with?
How would being a patient ever be a conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is something that causes someone to biased in a manner which risks undercutting the science in favor of something else – such as profit, career, or reputation. Patients are the least conflicted group anyone will come across, as they benefit most from the honest science, and are harmed by any deviation from it.
White, Chalder, and Sharpe’s objections rather read like they are trying to undercut Geraghty as a researcher, because “you know, crazy patients!”
I think their attempt to publicly out you and undermine you as a patient with their ridiculous COI accusation is exactly bullying. They have not demonstrated that being a patient is commonly considered a COI, nor presented any evidence of why it should be. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've even mentioned my disease as a possible COI when submitting commentary for publication, and it's been omitted by the journal as presumably not being an actual COI.So two official or unofficial complaints thus far directly to my University - something I consider a form a bullying and harassment, which is deeply upsetting to me and rather shocking.
Instead, the PACE authors seem to be suggesting that your diagnosis makes you incapable of making reasoned and civil arguments, especially since their COI demand comes immediately after accusing you of "unsubstantiated ... ad hominem attacks". Their use of the word "attacks" is especially egregious, with the connotations of violence, aggression, and militancy.