Professor Malcolm Hooper's letter to Dr Richard Horton, 15th April 2016

[Daisymay]

Professor Malcolm Hooper's letter to Dr Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, regarding the PACE Trial,15th April 2016.

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Hooper-to-Horton-15-April-2016.htm

The letter was sent by special delivery and the printed name of the signatory was obtained.

It was also sent (electronically) to the Editor of Lancet Psychiatry, Dr Niall Boyce, who was courteous enough to acknowledge it promptly and who promised to read it and note its contents.

It was not sent to the Editor of Psychological Medicine, given that Professors Matthew Hotopf, Michael Sharpe and Simon Wessely are on its editorial board.

 

[worldbackwards]

It was not sent to the Editor of Psychological Medicine, given that Professors Matthew Hotopf, Michael Sharpe and Simon Wessely are on its editorial board.

Because Horton's so much more receptive and reasonable.

 

[alex3619]

Horton is in a bind. He has had on his watch at least three studies considered some of the most problematic "scientific" papers of all time. He has defended all three. Two are current issues, including PACE. If he is undone here, is the next question "why is he editor at all"? That might be a big part of why he is so reticent.

 

[A.B.]

Horton is in a bind. He has had on his watch at least three studies considered some of the most problematic "scientific" papers of all time. He has defended all three. Two are current issues, including PACE. If he is undone here, is the next question "why is he editor at all"? That might be a big part of why he is so reticent.

There seems to be a culture of viewing retractions as failure, rather than as committment to quality.

 

[BurnA]

There seems to be a culture of viewing retractions as failure, rather than as committment to quality.

Indeed, why don't they have an award for most important retraction. This would at least recognise the importance of retractions.

 

[Aurator]

There seems to be a culture of viewing retractions as failure, rather than as committment to quality.

I suspect Horton won't retract or renounce at this late stage after being intransigent for so long. He has more to lose by retracting and implicitly acknowledging he was wrong than by simply continuing to be intransigent. He knows his best chance of preserving his integrity is to maintain, however improbably, that he acted in good faith all along and that he doesn't give in to "harassment".

 

[worldbackwards]

I suspect Horton won't retract or renounce at this late stage after being intransigent for so long. He has more to lose by retracting and implicitly acknowledging he was wrong than by simply continuing to be intransigent. He knows his best chance of preserving his integrity is to maintain, however improbably, that he acted in good faith all along and that he doesn't give in to "harassment".

Sadly for him, people are starting to notice the smell:

https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/does-the-lancet-care-about-patients/

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Revenge is a dish best served cold....

I think an icicle is being shoved up Horton, Wessley etc's arseholes right about now!

 

[Daisymay]

Professor Hooper has received a response from the Lancet from Dr Spencer, senior executive editor of the Lancet.

Here's Professor Hooper's reply to the Lancet's response:

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Response-to-Dr-Stuart-Spencer.htm

or http://bit.ly/1OcYp0y

 

[Esther12]

Professor Hooper has received a response from the Lancet from Dr Spencer, senior executive editor of the Lancet.

Here's Professor Hooper's reply to the Lancet's response:

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Response-to-Dr-Stuart-Spencer.htm

or http://bit.ly/1OcYp0y

Anyone know if a copy of the Lancet response is available?

 

[Hilary]

Great letter from Professor Hooper - I really hope he doesn't let the Lancet editors off the hook..

 

[Large Donner]

Anyone know if a copy of the Lancet response is available?

Don't be so vexatious!!

 

[Comet]

Professor Hooper has received a response from the Lancet from Dr Spencer, senior executive editor of the Lancet.

Here's Professor Hooper's reply to the Lancet's response:

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Response-to-Dr-Stuart-Spencer.htm

or http://bit.ly/1OcYp0y

Fabulous letter.

 

[Yogi]

Good to see Prof Hooper continue to challenge PACE trial and the Lancet.

I would like to see the response @Daisymay @Esther12 but given it was sent on same day (15 April) this may be all of it? Given how far they dug themselves in they are choosing not to give any substantive response apart from reiterating their existing position.

It seems that with the Wakefield paper and now the Macchiarini scandal the Lancet and Richard Horton are getting a reputation for publishing fraudulent papers.

Lancet and Horton are in a difficult situation and avoiding making the difficult but inevitable final result- Retraction. Instead the evidence will continue to build up against them and history will not judge them kindly given the harm and injury of GET to ME sufferers.

By digging their heels in they are only going to make matters unnecessarily worse for themselves in the long term given we are not going anywhere. The same applies to QMUL. These institutions are bigger than White, Sharpe and Chalder.

This is where the governance of an institution should step in and preserve their own brand reputation for their own long term interests.. The Lancet should put itself above the the self-interests of White, Sharpe and Chalder and simply retract.

It does not matter really what they do as they (and QMUL) are now in a LOSE - LOSE situation. It just means we have to wait a little bit longer but we will prevail!!

Perhaps the Lancet may wish to use this as their corporate logo?

 

[Countrygirl]

A corker of a letter! Thank you so much Professor Hooper! We are so privileged to have men (and women) of integrity fighting for us. Sadly, this virtue is a rare commodity and there are so few human beings of their calibre. They are indeed our 'treasures of the darkness'.

 

[Sean]

Horton is in a bind. He has had on his watch at least three studies considered some of the most problematic "scientific" papers of all time. He has defended all three. Two are current issues, including PACE. If he is undone here, is the next question "why is he editor at all"? That might be a big part of why he is so reticent.

To have to retract one major paper during an editorial career could be seen as misfortune. To have to retract two is starting to look careless. A third retraction should always be accompanied by a letter of resignation.

 

[Esther12]

To have to retract one major paper during an editorial career could be seen as misfortune. To have to retract two is starting to look careless. A third retraction should always be accompanied by a letter of resignation.

I'd have thought lots of journals should be retracting lots of papers - or at least placing expressions of concern on them. The way that Horton seems so resistant of criticism is the real problem.

 

[Sean]

Fair point, Esther.