UK Health Research Authority defends PACE. Answer to MP's question, February 2019.

This thread has been split from the general thread on the PACE trial.

The Health Research authority has responded to questions of MP Norman Lamb from the Science and Technology Committee, House of Commons, regarding the PACE-trial. https://www.parliament.uk/documents...Research-Authority-to-Chair-re-PACE-trial.pdf

The HRA defends the PACE-trial and does not see anything wrong with it.

The Science media Center is promoting the letter, with expert reactions to the letter. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...iry-on-research-integrity-and-the-pace-trial/

 

"However, the full picture shows that the general approach was to release data responsibility."

What data was that then?

 

This report seems to be a mix of confusion about what the criticisms made of PACE were and a presumption that if other supposedly authoritative sources said things were okay, they were okay. They don't provide any new information at all.

 

what does "the supplement of the categorical outcome scores by measures of improvement" mean? what is that referring to? The post-hoc "improvement" findings?

 

Information on the HRA. It’s a relatively new body, established Jan 2015.

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/

 

You just have to laugh at the fact that they cite NICE recommending the "treatments" as independent validation of the promise they held at the time when of course this recommendation came from their own work and Wessely's influence.

Literally pointing at their own recommendation as evidence that it was recommended.

According to me, I should receive the Nobel peace prize. I even have a good and proper recommendation: me. Thank me, that clever rascal. I also approve of me nominating myself and voting myself. And, oh would you look at that I can now confirm independent recommendation of my perfection and you just know it is true and perfect because I approve of it.

Also according to my mirror: I am a thing a beauty. My mirror told me independently and I can vouch for it.

 

OT and not important: Their first Chief Excutive was Janet Wisely, and there is some info about her in this thread relating to SMILE/PACE:

https://www.s4me.info/threads/janet...f-their-discussions-included.1770/#post-30638

 

This agency does not appear to have performed an independent analysis and was apparently deceived by the carefully crafted illusion that PACE is OK.

That people who look only superficially into PACE conclude that there aren't major problems has happened before. A forensic analysis is required.

For example, the classification of PACE as having low risk of bias by Cochrane violated Cochrane's own rules for assessing bias in clinical trials. The data sharing with Cochrane is also not what it appears, as the PACE authors themselves were part of the review team. Prof. Chalder even admitted that this was not an independent review. They have never released the data to independent scientists as far as I know (or at least not to scientists that were critical).

 

Its rather confusing, which PACE study do they think carries the real results? The revised protocol study where they claimed modest recovery rates or the original protocol that didn't change the definition of recovery to being ill and recovered at the same time which allowed the revised definition to claim the modest efficacy rates rather than showing the facts that there was zero clinically statistical significance to the treatments?

Or is such like out side of the scope of their investigation in which case what exactly did they look into?

 

HRA only concluded (wrongly IMO) that there are no major concerns within its regulatory remit:

 

I think in any response the limits of their remit must be emphasized. Although I agree that even within their remit this analysis falls short.

 

Do you think they really mean this?

Surely they intended to say