David Tuller: Trial By Error: HRA Report Does Not Vindicate PACE

HRA Report Does Not Vindicate PACE

Last week, I reported that Bristol University had launched an independent investigation of research led by Professor Esther Crawley, at the request of the the UK Health Research Authority. Today, the HRA released a report on the PACE trial that has portrayed it as a well-conducted study. GET/CBT supporters are portraying this report as a vindication

 

Ah I get how this works now that I realise the Bristol investigation was requested by the HRA. Bristol didn't care to investigate themselves and their star grant obtainer because they didn't want to look beneath the covers until HRA come along and tell them to effectively investigate themselves.

No doubt Bristol Uni then go to Crawley who works for Bristol Uni with some straw man critiques. She then claims she has answered them all before, Bristol go back to the HRA and say there's nothing to see here using Crawley as the principal investigator of herself.

Then the HRA publish "their" findings without doing anything at all except a copy and paste of a few sides of A4 written by Crawley which somehow will appear as the HRA independent investigation.

So that's a perfect example of how the HRA investigation of PACE worked then.

 

I am holding out some hope for a better outcome than that. but we will have to wait and see.

 

Far from vindicating, it doesn't even clear it.

Most of it seems to be outside of their remit, largely it seems because no one thought any researcher would be so brazen as to just not care about legitimate criticism and just stamp their feet about it being the perfect work of angels, beyond all reproach and now an instant classic nighttime read to children. Also helps to have political influence. I guess nobody thought about that either, who watches the watchmen and all.

I'll admit that I'm starting to have some completely detached curiosity in exactly how this all played out. As in, even beyond the direct massively negative impact on my life, I really want to know how this whole madhouse unfolded. It's so egregiously corrupt and broken I just can't shake off the enormous parallels with Trump. Everyone can plainly see it's all broken but it just keeps on ticking and destroying lives because some people get a real nice kickback out of it.

I mean everyone agrees that 65 > 60 and still everyone pretends like it's just fine and proper to move the finish line behind the starting line and everyone does it anyway (even though no, definitely not).

I'd really like to get off Wessely's Insane Ride now. It's exactly as much not fun as it sounds to be caught in the freaking nightmare haunted house of a narcissist's ego trip. Any day now would be fine. I have people to do and things to see and stuff like that.

 

Speaking of Levin's presentation, the PDF has been taken down from the university's website. I have used the link several times (that are now dead) and it's a pretty good asset to show. Is there any way you can contact someone to get it back up?

This was the link: http://irvinginstitute.columbia.edu/pdf/How_Not_to_Conduct_in_Randomized_Clinical_Trial_Levin.pdf.

 

Might as well live in a world where "two plus two equals fish", from that movie about the mortgage/financial meltdown in 2008 - I believe. (can't recall the show's title)

 

Could always try asking him directly, Bruce.Levin@Columbia.edu

 

Stray "s" I think @dave30th in "The criticisms outlined in this open letters"

 

I just finished watching the Steven Spielberg movie "The Post" about the enormous pressure the owner and editor of The Washington Post were under to not print evidence showing that for years and years the Vietnam War was known by the US to be unwinnable. Continuing only meant more deaths on both sides. Nothing would be gained.

It really didn't matter how many people were going to die, no President wanted to be the one who 'lost' the Vietnam War.

Protecting legacy is primary. Lives are expendable.

 

5:25 AM
https://twitter.com/user/status/1093108384050675712

5:25 AM
https://twitter.com/user/status/1093108445094531072

5:27 AM
https://twitter.com/user/status/1093108882690527232

 

yes, I'll touch base with Bruce and find out what's up with that. thanks for the suggestion.

 

The Big Short?

 

and simultaneously retweeted by Simon Wessely.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1093137696082530306


this could be interesting

 

My honest opinion is it will go the same way as the HRA PACE investigation. They will clear themselves as they did for the PACE one.

Then they will use that as evidence that the whole saga has lived up to the most amount scrutiny ever and been shown to be sound. Then they will be able to push the harassment narrative further with anyone who continues to raise concerns.

Some time within the next two years they will then try to get as big a media outlet as they can to make a documentary on it and it will be a complete hit piece about how wonderful they were all standing up for science in the face of death threats and harassment.

 

Was it the case that all researchers who were refused access to the data refused to confirm an intention to adhere to conditions in relation to confidentiality agreements? Or does the statement in the letter conceal a half truth?

In a letter from a lawyer one might reasonably have expected the extent of the remit and the matters which fall outwith it to be specified at the end of the first paragraph. Having said that he is not in a position to comment on certain aspects of the complaints he appears to do just that, without indicating the extent to which such comments are "obiter dicta".

 

Oh, that is a good find.

I'm sure it's totally normal that a neutral science communications "charity" would do a coordinated PR push with the authors of a controversial paper.

I found it odd that the SMC tweet was so mangled. 10:1 Sharpe wrote it himself. His mastery of language is about as extensive as his integrity as a clinical researcher.

All good and proper. Who doesn't have their own PR shop masquerading as a neutral party?

 

It seems they have only taken the researchers' word at it. We know of several people who requested the data and were just told it was "vexatious", which is about as big a tell as it gets that the data contradicts their claims.

I don't know how big of a commitment it would be to ask them to come forward with this? Coyne and Geraghty, I think. Hughes as well? Wilshire probably. Levin? I'm sure there are others. The PACE authors are also contractually bound because of the PLOS paper so it's not even up to them. No one can have unilateral authority to share data only to friendly colleagues, this makes a mockery of the process of science.

This particular bit about the sharing of data is a particularly egregious failure from HRA. It seems they have decided that being asked and refusing to share for arbitrary purposes is all good and proper simply because the proper actions happened in the proper order, even though the decision was entirely illegitimate. The die is rigged but the bought for referee says it was properly thrown is one hell of a bad excuse.