Trial By Error: Professor Sharpe’s Retraction Requests

[Andy]

After this month’s release of the Health Research Authority’s PACE analysis, Professor Michael Sharpe sent e-mails to at least two US publications requesting a retraction or major correction of critical articles. Professor Sharpe’s e-mails accused the writers involved of suggesting that PACE was “fraudulent.” This accusation was not true.

In both cases, the writers had accurately described the PACE investigators’ misleading presentations of the data. In both cases, editors have rejected Professor Sharpe’s request.

Professor Sharpe appears to be hyping the HRA report as a full-scale vindication of PACE. In doing so, he is ignoring the limits of the agency’s purview. In its letter, the HRA itself noted that its remit is to focus on regulatory matters, such as the process of obtaining ethical approvals, and not on the quality of the science.

http://www.virology.ws/2019/02/18/trial-by-error-professor-sharpes-retraction-requests/

 

[inox]

Huh...? That's - bold...?

Did he think the recivers of the requests wouldn't read the HRA-report? Did he not read it himself.....?

 

[inox]

Quote from Sharpe's letter:

Their conclusions are published today.

That's telling. He sent complaints about at least two articles, from 2017 and 2016, the very same day the HRA-letter was published.

So he either/or knew beforehand what their conclusions where (and could prepare), and/or have kept a list of articles at hand that he have issues with. Surely, he did not jump into action starting to read up on all the material that have been published about PACE in the years since that very day?

Edit: an important, forgotten not added

 

[Alvin]

He thinks he can throw his weight around and prevent the truth from gaining traction

 

[Peter T]

Huh...? That's - bold...?

Did he think the recivers of the requests wouldn't read the HRA-report? Did he not read it himself.....?

Given it is one of his Sharpe's standard responses to accuse critics of not having read what they obviously have read, this would seem an appropriate response to him.

Ideally one would wish to send him a list of things to read and insist he comments no further on anything to do with ME/CFS until he demonstrates he has read and understood them.

 

[Alvin]

Ideally one would wish to send him a list of things to read and insist he comments no further on anything to do with ME/CFS until he demonstrates he has read and understood them.

But thats censorship. People who believe themselves righteous are entitled to double standards.

 

[Adrian]

It makes me wonder if we should be asking the HRA to speak out about the misuse of their report.

 

[EzzieD]

In both cases, editors have rejected Professor Sharpe’s request.

That's excellent to hear.

 

[Sly Saint]

That's telling. He sent complaints about at least two articles, from 2017 and 2016, the very same day the HRA-letter was published.

I wonder how many people SW forwarded/mentioned the report to?

Just in case anyone hasn't read this ( hi Prof Sharpe)
"
The HRA report does not exonerate the PACE trial, it merely confirms that its Research Ethics approval was in order"
https://notthesciencebit.net/2019/0...at-its-research-ethics-approval-was-in-order/

 

[Lucibee]

My response is to just keep sharing 'em.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-pace-trial/

https://theconversation.com/how-a-s...-was-doctored-adding-to-pain-and-stigma-74890

 

[Robert 1973]

@dave30th Do you have any plans to write about your concerns with the HRA assessment and/or write to Norman Lamb to make him aware of those concerns?

 

[inox]

I wonder how many people SW forwarded/mentioned the report to?

Just in case anyone hasn't read this
"
The HRA report does not exonerate the PACE trial, it merely confirms that its Research Ethics approval was in order"
https://notthesciencebit.net/2019/0...at-its-research-ethics-approval-was-in-order/

On the same note, a link to the letter in question.

https://www.parliament.uk/documents...Research-Authority-to-Chair-re-PACE-trial.pdf

Also - when looking for this I first went to the SMC, their 'expert' opinions did not have any convenient direct link to the letter itself. That might have been 'convenient' for others

It would not be appropriate for the HRA to seek to resolve these debates about the quality of the study. Discussion of the meaning and robustness of results is how science is expected to proceed.

Our concern as a regulator is whether the study was properly approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC).

It would be as inappropriate for the regulator to disregard these indications that the trial was of high quality as to ignore the criticisms that have been expressed. The range of views suggests that the debate needs to be continued, not constricted by regulatory action.

Edit: my bolding

 

[Sean]

I can smell the desperation from here.

 

[Cheshire]

@Jonathan Edwards @Brian Hughes @Carolyn Wilshire
Do you know of any other examples of researchers trying to shut down criticism in such a blatant way? Is it something frequent or very rare?

 

[Sasha]

It makes me wonder if we should be asking the HRA to speak out about the misuse of their report.

Good idea. What do you think, @dave30th?

 

[Barry]

I think this is a wonderful and very public example of how the PACE authors seek to suppress valid scientific critique by falsely accusing their critics of Ad hominem attacks. Clearly shows their attitude to genuine scientific debate.

 

[Snowdrop]

I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to open a new thread to discuss the failings that happened with the PACE trial prior to starting. Since the HRA letter from Montgomery is out there the failings that happened in the process of approving the trial have come to the fore. I think what happened and how might be fruitful to consider.

I don't want to start this thread because I have absolutely nothing to offer by way of insight into the process.
So I'm hoping others here might.

 

[rvallee]

He thinks he can throw his weight around and prevent the truth from gaining traction

And that weight outside the UK is basically nil.

That's the problem with mutual admiration societies. As soon as you step out of the circle jerk, nobody's jerking back.

 

[Alvin]

And that weight outside the UK is basically nil.

That's the problem with mutual admiration societies. As soon as you step out of the circle jerk, nobody's jerking back.

I see where your coming from but science is a worldwide endeavour, so while he can't as easily bully organizations outside the UK since his power does not extend there keeping PACE on the books allows them to influence the overall ME debate in their favour. Technically its still on the books in a prestigious journal and has influence.
Their greatest fear is probably that a biomarker or treatment will be found, if they can't prevent biomedical research someday we may have a drug that treats ME and their house of cards will collapse. Though i expect more spin at that point, see we were right but like "antidepressants" treat depression this new drug treat the psychological disease thats ME...
Then they will be laughed out of the room

 

[dave30th]

@dave30th Do you have any plans to write about your concerns with the HRA assessment and/or write to Norman Lamb to make him aware of those concerns?

I have made my concerns known to Carol Monaghan. She's on the committee with Norman Lamb.