Analysis of minister’s response in Westminster Hall PACE debate

@Robert 1973, that PDF version tells me I need permission.

Sorry, I've just enabled sharing.

Someone really needs to write a book on this. Maybe we should get that Mueller chap to look into it once he has done with the other stuff.

I am hoping that someone might be you, @Jonathan Edwards. In the meantime, could I ask you to post your comments below the article so that as many people read them as possible? Thanks.
 
The only conceivable reason I can think of is that those in charge at the MRC genuinely believed that ME patients were malingerers and therefore it was reasonable for the DWP to fund a trial that supported that conclusion.

Perhaps the illness and patients are seen as unworthy. If that sentiment is pervasive in the circle of people involved in all this, disrespectful behaviour and rule violations could be the normal. As normal as having coffee for breakfeast.
 
The only conceivable reason I can think of is that those in charge at the MRC genuinely believed that ME patients were malingerers and therefore it was reasonable for the DWP to fund a trial that supported that conclusion.
Been trying to get my head round whether it is unethical to fund a trial whose hypothesis is one you favour. I imagine it's how a great many trials might be funded. It clearly becomes unethical if the trial itself is unethically run, and especially if the researchers have any conflicts of interests that might bias them towards wanting to please their funders. Which then makes me think that if funders are clearly partisan, can researchers ever then be completely unbiased? Is there always going to be a tendency to want to please the funder, so you can go back for more funding another time?

Having written all that, it now seems to me the safest thing is for funders to clearly be non-partisan.

But still confused.
 
“The results of the PACE trial, which examined pacing therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome, were published four years after the NICE guidance. The trial ran from 2005 to 2011 and, contrary to what the hon. Lady said, was primarily funded by the Medical Research Council, not the DWP. Total funding was £5 million and the MRC contributed almost £3 million.”

Maybe so, but how come the MRC agreed to allow a study they presumably deemed to be fundable on scientific merit, to be partly funded by a party with a clear conflict of interest? It is a bit like the MRC doing a cancer drug trial and allowing one particular pharma company to half fund the trial, which conveniently was unblinded so everyone would know which patients were on the company drug.

The MRC must have aware that the DWP had never before funded a trial of a therapy, for obvious reasons. It was not their responsibility so would obviously have been profligate unless of course it helped reduce the budget in the long term. But then funding a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis would do that just the same?

The only conceivable reason I can think of is that those in charge at the MRC genuinely believed that ME patients were malingerers and therefore it was reasonable for the DWP to fund a trial that supported that conclusion.

In response, Prof Chalder stated that “disclosure to the Cochrane review does not count as disclosure to independent scientists as all three of the PACE principal investigators sat on the review panel.” [24b]

I really love this. Dr Chalder seems to be good at putting her foot in it when it comes to trying to justify the shenanigans. So Cochrane is a stitch up according to her - right from the horses mouth. I have personally heard nothing back from Cochrane about my recent comments on Larun, White, Sharpe, Brurberg, Glasziou et al. Iain Chalmers said it was nothing to do with him that he works for the same outfit as Glasziou and co-authors erudite reviews on how not to make mistakes on trials!

Someone really needs to write a book on this. Maybe we should get that Mueller chap to look into it once he has done with the other stuff.

That Chalder statement and the fact that Wessely was both a stakeholder/supporter(someone help me, what was it?) or whatever to PACE and the one who set up the ME section of Cochrane should put to bed any claims of unbiased review from Cochrane. We should have all our advocates keep that info at hand to beat them around the ears with. In fact we should be using that Chalder statement as a pre-emptive attack in articles where both sides are gonna have a say. It'll make them look even worse than they already do.
 
Back
Top Bottom