TSC and TMG minutes released

[JohntheJack]

I have now received these minutes.

TSC:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1b86k0pvnymko16/TSC.zip?dl=0

TMG:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jhxmivxyn9k8lid/TMG.zip?dl=0

I am tired and have only skimmed through them.

Major point is how little there is on the changes in protocol.

TSC #8
File 20090429 TSC

The TSC approves the PACE analysis strategy principles but will give extra time to TSC members to approve the PACE analysis strategy text.
Action: to circulate an email to TSC members asking for comments by June. If no comments are received by that date it will be assumed that the relevant TSC member agrees with the analysis strategy. The analysis strategy will be presented to the Mental Health Research Network (MHRN) Methadology group on the 7th July.
After taking the MHRN’s comments on board a TSC teleconference will be held to finalise the analysis strategy. During the teleconference it will be decided who will be responsible for signing of the analysis strategy. The data of the TSC teleconference will be decided by email.



TSC #9
File 20100910 Joint meeting TSC and DMEC

Presentation of statistical analysis for main paper presented an overview of the statistical analysis strategy for the trial. The changes made to the analysis since the original protocol was drafted were highlighted and it was noted that the analysis plan was agreed by the TSC and signed off before analysis commenced.

ACTION 1: to ensure that the review and sign off of the analysis strategy by the TSC is well documented.


And that was it. Notable that their constant reference to the approval by two independent committees is technically correct, but in practice the changes seem to have been made at a joint meeting of the two committees.

Also interesting to me is how involved The Lancet was right from an early stage, and how the fast-track review was agreed before the paper was even written.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

And that was it. Notable that their constant reference to the approval by two independent committees is technically correct, but in practice the changes seem to have been made at a joint meeting of the two committees.

Also interesting to me is how involved The Lancet was right from an early stage, and how the fast-track review was agreed before the paper was even written.

because there has ALWAYS been a default position of conspiracy by those with power in the Medical Profession, to hammer any problem as if it was nail, hammer it into their view of things, and to over-ride, destroy or ignore anything else.
Goes way back, see Dr John Snow or Dr Ignatz Semelweiss and the abuse they suffered from other doctors when they challenged the "accepted view".

Really, the medical profession is a cult that sells "health".
Individual doctors, nurses etc can stick to their true, personal calling, to heal and help, but the "professional" bodies always end up corrupt as hell, huge amount of money and power involved.
he who has your health, has you by the balls!

however in our case, government and Big Business are also involved
way too much money, arrogance, egos, and law suits on the horizon if they do not collude to railroad their views on this and some other topics.
Ergo: PACE TRIAL was going to be supported by the Establishment regardless of the scientific facts, or harm or deaths it eventually caused

wake up anyone who hasn't accepted this yet: this is a conspiracy to deny us proper treatment and other help, has been for last 30 years.