Spanish elites rally in support of data manipulation (Jan 2019) by Leonid Schneider, For Better Science

[MSEsperanza]

'Spanish elites rally in support of data manipulation' (Jan 2019) by Leonid Schneider, For Better Science

A horrible, horrible conspiracy befell Spain. Worse than anything you can imagine: Carlos Lopez-Otin, a star of cancer and ageing research from the University of Oviedo, was forced to retract EIGHT papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), right after he retracted a very important paper in Nature Cell Biology. Spanish elites cry foul, and point accusing fingers at the evil deed by JBC, and of course also at yours truly, without naming me, for my “virulent and libellous attacks” on poor Carlos. A letter signed by 50 Spanish researchers was sent to JBC trying to dissuade the journal from retracting the 8 papers.

https://forbetterscience.com/2019/01/30/spanish-elites-rally-in-support-of-data-manipulation/

 

[NelliePledge]

It’s not just the Brits then

 

[TiredSam]

I welcome your opinions, suggestions and stories for my future journalistic investigations.

I wonder if he'd be interested in our situation?

 

[Kalliope]

I wonder if he'd be interested in our situation?

He is. He has written about PACE before, for instance:

PACE trial and other clinical data sharing: patient privacy concerns and parasite paranoia
Since the PACE study came out in 2011, the patients, but also a number of academic scientists, remained unconvinced of the published therapy recommendations and suspected a misinterpretation of data. The authors felt harassed and even threatened by the patients’ incessant demands. The relevant research institutions, the Queen Mary University London and the King’s College London, took the side of their clinicians and refused the release of data, using as argument the allegedly inappropriate nature of such requests and the privacy rights of trial participants.

Does The Lancet care about patients?
Another issue The Lancet should look into is the so-called PACE trial (which I previously reported on), published in 2011 (White et al). This clinical trial dealt with medical efficiency of different therapies for chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME, well explained in this recent Guardian article). Just as the aforementioned Le Blanc’s Lancet paper, also the PACE trial apparently passed off patients, who were not sufficiently ill to begin with, as recovered to demonstrate the efficiency of exercise therapy. This, if true, is no minor thing, but puts the integrity and validity of the entire study in doubt.

 

[Barry]

He is. He has written about PACE before, for instance:

PACE trial and other clinical data sharing: patient privacy concerns and parasite paranoia
Since the PACE study came out in 2011, the patients, but also a number of academic scientists, remained unconvinced of the published therapy recommendations and suspected a misinterpretation of data. The authors felt harassed and even threatened by the patients’ incessant demands. The relevant research institutions, the Queen Mary University London and the King’s College London, took the side of their clinicians and refused the release of data, using as argument the allegedly inappropriate nature of such requests and the privacy rights of trial participants.

Does The Lancet care about patients?
Another issue The Lancet should look into is the so-called PACE trial (which I previously reported on), published in 2011 (White et al). This clinical trial dealt with medical efficiency of different therapies for chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME, well explained in this recent Guardian article). Just as the aforementioned Le Blanc’s Lancet paper, also the PACE trial apparently passed off patients, who were not sufficiently ill to begin with, as recovered to demonstrate the efficiency of exercise therapy. This, if true, is no minor thing, but puts the integrity and validity of the entire study in doubt.

This article was a few months before PACE data was released due to the FOI request. Since then "but also a number of academic scientists" has swelled considerably.