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

I see, so who briefed them then?

 

QMUL, the PACE lot... I expect that there could have been a few quiet words from other interested parties. That they seem to have used some very similar wording to what was seen on PACE 'FAQ's doesn't encourage faith in their truly independent frame of mind, but it's still worth avoiding claiming that the letter was written by people within the BPS crowd when that probably isn't literally true and could be used to frame criticism of HRA's work as unreasonable.

 

Why are you claiming it then.

 

He ran one of the clinics where the interventions were carried out, he wasn't directly involved with the design or organisation of the trial, though I'm sure he was asked for advice...

 

My cynical speculations about the HRA are just on the right side of the line I've imagined for myself...

Also, it's much easier to see how other peoples' words could be unhelpful or used against us than to spot it in ones own posts!

 

Could it be...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VomBuudIDsM

 

Oh ghee thanks for babysitting me Esther.

 

Not who I had in mind but that works too.

 

Did you mind? #sorry if it seemed patronising. I like to be babysat! If I didn't have people pointing out problems with what I posted I'd be in a much worse place today. I assume people here are generally trying to pull together in the same direction.

 

In that case I'll take this opportunity to tell you to stop panicking over the things people say in their posts.

 

I've just been reading an ICO decision notice that used some defensible but strong criticism on a forum to help justify a refusal to release PACE info (a comment I made about a tribunal ruling has also been used against other patients). Easy to find examples of academics using patients expressing justified frustration as reason to avoid criticising PACE. I'm not saying your comment was some disaster, but I think it's worth encouraging a culture where we are all trying to remind each other that letting off a bit of steam here can end up causing problems elsewhere. We're having to deal with a lot of frustrating stuff, and it's easy to forget how our irritation/cynicism/distrust can lead to problems if it's not carefully phrased and explained.

We shouldn't have to worry about things like this, but I keep finding examples of reasons why we do!

 

Somehow, "evidence" sounds considerably more convincing than "indications."

When asking my doctor if a medical procedure is safe, I'm not sure that I'd want to hear him say that "there are indications that the science is sound."

 

Dear @Suffolkres, do you have an original or reference of this text?

 

helpful to see this all in one place. thanks.

 

I will have to delve back into my archives.....
If I can't locate it Tom K will, or Malcolm H Margaret W

 

I think it's this:
https://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0405c&L=CO-CURE&P=2232

 

Especially if he follows up with but there is evidence of concern . . .

I had missed that statement the first time. Pretty revealing if you ask me.

 

Yes, as I said, he was the director of the clinic (and Clinical Trials Unit), but didn't do the database design/management himself.

The bit you left out of the quote is the person responsible for randomisation, database design and management (Dr Tony Johnson).

 

Err ye.... you do keep doing that.