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

well, they also got the approval date wrong--they said it was 2007

 

Wow. How depressingly disappointing.

 

It's a bit like Jenga - they keep trying to push the blocks back in....

 

First, I think SW hinted at this in a tweet that essentially suggested that PACE would not be declared poor science at any inquiry I know the letter isn't an inquiry but I think it's indicative of the tenor of continued support (and pressure) that would come from on high. He is well aware of the people who are invested in protecting the integrity of the trial.

The letter seems to have a lot of caveats and is cautiously worded.

The best strategy I can think of is to isolate this London group from the rest of the world as much as possible.
In other words, they will never capitulate. There is no sense trying. But if most of everyone else can see that the trial is nonsense then they will start to look so ridiculous that they will at least need to quietly withdraw.

Will now go back to reading others posts.

 

Also, the pages at this site cannot be archived.

 

Basically, the establishment supporting itself.

It's hard to conduct a review if you don't actually understand or engage with the specific issues at stake...

 

What they are trying to say was the only reason they didn't release data was to protect patient confidentiality, and because of "vexatious requests" and all the other usual crap that White and co tried to pull.

The whole thing reads like they just went and asked White about all of this and then just said to him can you write the response for us you know more about it than us.

They seem to think that's a reasonable way to carry out an inquiry.

 

Essentially.

 

Is that true considering the latest state of affairs under review at Cochrane?

 

That's what I thought....
Own goal, or is the wording smart-enough doublespeak?

 

It does seem conveniently timed that the expected hit piece on David Tuller is in the works alongside this fake response about the PACE trial that seems to be living in a denial cocoon.

 

Ironically Jonathan Montgomery retweeted this:
https://twitter.com/user/status/1089848684970475520


see also:
not had a chance to look thro this but there are ties with Academy of Medical Science which has SW
https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/34274-54760c6a39bcc.pdf
https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/7810-ReportAc.pdf

too late for me; will come back to this tomorrow

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1093231836279595008

 

Even the authors asserted they did it because the original criteria were too strict, which is another way of saying the original criteria would have produced outcomes unacceptable to them.

 

[My bold]
Fair enough ... so can we finally have a debate on PACE? Because so far the authors and their supporters have refused to engage in one. Their only "engagement" is to cast aspersions at those who strive to debate the science with them. The above comment acknowledges the quality of PACE is not nearly so cut and dried as they might otherwise suggest. Deliberate ambiguity?

[My bold]
Any one undisclosed CoI would presumably constitute failure to comply with the Declaration of Helsinki. They cite one they deem to not be a failure, yet tail off identifying clear omissions in the PIS ... is that not a failure then? Even though they don't say it's a failure, they don't dispute it.

They were advising insurance companies to not pay out to patients unless those patients underwent treatments that the authors had trialled and recommended. Seeing as they no doubt saved the insurance companies pots of money by reducing their payouts, they would therefore have assured long term continuance of their advisory roles, so their remunerations assured long term. And the professional kudos that went with that is also a form of personal gain.

That debating thing again.

And again. Oh for some real debate.

 

Am feeling very ignorant but I am not really sure of the full significance of this.

Can we, S4ME, copy and file the HRA decision?

Does the H of C keep copies of answers to questions from its committees or MPs? Are they accessible to us?

 

Great example of sunk cost and escalation of commitment, trying evermore people to the failure of this fake research, giving them motivation to help defend it.

Now any trial criticized for changing their success criteria in order to achieve a more positive outcome can cite this judgment. Overlapping entry and "success" criteria? Same. Conflicts of interest, self-reviews and mutual admiration networks, fast-tracking, broad selection criteria, biasing and cherry-picking patients, monetary gain from paid advisory work, all of this can now be brushed off in any trial done in the UK by simply pointing at this as validation that it's all fine. Telling your participants that the treatment they're testing works during the trial, basically promising a cure? All good and proper. Registering and then arbitrarily changing protocol? No problem, just hide it well enough and nobody cares.

The judgment also makes a point that it's probably all good since Lancet hasn't retracted it (and Cochrane too but it's kind of linked). It's likely that another high profile retraction could sink the Lancet for good, showing it has learned absolutely nothing from the Wakefield paper and cannot be counted as a reliable arbiter of science, as if the recent EAT-Lancet debacle wasn't bad enough. Every institution has been ensnared, the rope firmly around everyone's neck. If this falls, they all feel the pain.

Destroying the credibility of all UK medical institutions, all for the stupid ideological IAPT project. I guess we have our first confirmed case of actual mass hysteria driven by unhelpful illness beliefs. It's usually one possible explanation but here, clearly, madness is the driving force.

 

The analysis plan was suddenly changed when the FINE trial revealed null results. This is not a coincidence.