Judge rules against QMUL on PACE trial scandal.

University Navigation

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The PACE trial is a scandal that has been rumbling on for years, but one that many of those in the UK, and particularly at QMUL, may have only heard one side of. A new judgement out this week has rejected QMUL's attempt to avoid releasing anonymised trial data, and also been critical of the way QMUL attempted to portray the trial's patient critics.

    The director of Sense About Science USA greeted news of the Tribunal's decision by stating that the "PACE trial is a fault line between the way we did medicine (secretive, clubbable) and the way we should do medicine (transparent, shared)" and "PACE is turning out to be the science controversy of the decade: it indicts the medical ecosystem of review".

    http://www.centreforwelfarereform.or...ial/00296.html

    For those who'd prefer a podcast:
    http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-397/

    The response of QMUL to this scandal has been shameful. No-one within the university seems to feel that they have a responsibility to investigate patient's concerns properly. I think that this poses serious questions about the culture and values that guide the university, particularly in medicine.

    A few months back I commented on this issue, and linked to a report that summarises many of the issues. It is now time for those at QMUL, including students, to start paying attention to what is happening at the university:
    (Original post by #PACEtrial)
    Hi there, I'm really concerned about the way in which some researchers at QMUL have been spinning their data, and then attempting to smear patients who are concerned about what they've done. The QMUL administration seems to have also been attempting to portray Freedom of Infomation requests as harassment.There was a report out last week which provides some details on this: http://www.centreforwelfarereform.or...f-recovery.pdfIs this something that others at QMUL are concerned about and trying to fight against, or is no-one really bothered?
    (Original post by Queen Mary University of London)
    Hi, thanks for getting in touch.Although I am aware of the PACE trial, I am not in a position to respond on behalf of the university. Personally, I do not know enough about the study to comment on it.Sorry to not be of more help.Barts love,Will
    (Original post by #PACEtrial)
    Thanks Will.Do you know if there are people at QMUL who are interested in looking at these sorts of abuses of power? To me it seems like those responsible are able to get away with avoiding justifying their actions, and that others at QMUL aren't really interested in looking at the details. Do you think that there is a cultural problem around ethical standards at QMUL?Also, I'd be interested to know how you're aware of the PACE trial, and if QMUL have been spinning things to students too.
    (Original post by Queen Mary University of London)
    Hi,My own experience of medical research at QMUL has been positive. Medical students at Barts are taught about ethical issues surrounding medical research throughout the duration of the course.As I have stated, it would be inappropriate for me to comment specifically on the issues surrounding the PACE trial as I have not had an opportunity to read up on it.Thanks,Will
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Seconded. Absolutely disgraceful, and the institution should be forthcoming with an apology, in press, without delay
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Seconded. Absolutely disgraceful, and the institution should be forthcoming with an apology, in press, without delay
    Thanks. I agree.

    Since I last posted data from the trial has been used to show that, when using the trial's protocol recovery criteria, the treatments developed by the trial's researchers failed to lead to any significant improvement in recovery rates:

    https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/...me-pace-trial/

    The Canary just featured a story on some of the politics surrounding the trial, and the attempt to secure the release of data:

    http://www.thecanary.co/2016/10/02/r...data-released/

    If there are any impassioned students at QMUL looking for a wrong to right, this seems a worthwhile area to campaign on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Disgraced researcher/lead author, Peter White, has had the audacity to write an article entitled 'If my team’s research on ME is rejected, the patients will suffer', that the Guardian were foolish enough to run! Dear God, is there no limit to the malevolent pride of these cretins? Not one mention of methodology, or ounce of contrition. Arrogance beyond belief. QMUL should be utterly ashamed attempting to cover up and defend this crap, at great cost to their financial stakeholders!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Peter White's response is shameful, and that he seems to think he can get away with it show just how low he (seemingly rightly) believes standards are at QMUL.

    He says:

    "The authors got their figures by tweaks such as increasing the pass-grade for what counted as recovery, and excluding patients who had reported themselves as “much better”."

    But the re-analysis used the recovery criteria that he had published in the trial protocol! They did not 'tweak' it, they followed his guidelines. It was he who had refused to do this, making absurd adjustments to what was meant by 'recovery' and attempting to justify them with clear factual inaccuracies.

    The patient who won access to the PACE trial data and helped conduct the re-analysis has addressed White's comments on pubmed, but White and his colleague continue to seem keen to avoid any real debate:

    [excerpt from Matthees comments]:

    "We used the recovery criteria as established by Prof. White and colleagues in the published PACE trial protocol. However, including those who rated themselves "much better" makes little difference to the number of participants classified as recovered when using the other protocol-specified recovery criteria, even when imputing the missing participant-rated CGI scores with doctor-rated scores, which tend to be more optimistic than the participant-rated scores: SMC, 5 to 6; APT, 3 (unchanged); CBT, 11 to 13; GET, 7 to 9. Our conclusion remains the same, no therapy group has a (statistically) significantly higher rate of recovery than for SMC alone, for either intention-to-treat or available-case. Almost all the participants who rated themselves "much better" failed to meet the remaining protocol-specified recovery criteria.

    The comment from Prof. White does not address the major changes to other criteria. The revised "normal range" for fatigue and physical function overlaps with trial eligibility criteria for severe disabling fatigue, whereas previously there was a significant gap. Not meeting Oxford CFS criteria in the revised recovery criteria is not what it sounds: participants were counted as not meeting Oxford CFS criteria if they had a CFQ (bimodal) fatigue score of less than 6 or a SF-36 physical function score of more than 65, irrespective of whether they still met Oxford CFS criteria or not. Approximately half of those who 'no longer met Oxford CFS criteria' according to the revised recovery criteria still actually met Oxford CFS criteria. Feeling "much better" is not necessarily the same as recovered and can be a result of changes not relating to fatigue or physical function. None of the revised recovery criteria, alone or combined, convincingly reflect being recovered. Over one-third meeting all the revised recovery criteria still met Oxford CFS criteria."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/myncbi/...es.1/comments/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A new peer-reviewed paper takes apart the spin recovery claims from the PACE trial piece by piece, concluding:

    "The claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments."

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...alCode=rftg20&

    Some media coverage of this new paper is here:

    http://undark.org/2016/12/19/british...ampaign=buffer

    Still, it seems that the QUML administration is simply trusting and attempting to protect the researchers responsible for this trial, rahter than properly investigating their work and attempting to protect patients and students from misleading medical claims.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yesterday the PACE trial scandal was the main story on one of australia's major news websites:
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/sc...62818a12c2e386


    QMUL trying to ignore the problems with how they and their staff have behaved is only going to make them look worse in the long-run.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This seems to be a somewhat limited discussion but you both appear to be enjoying it….
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GrahamRodney)
    This seems to be a somewhat limited discussion but you both appear to be enjoying it….
    It's not a surprise that no-one is willing to engage in any sort of debate defending the PACE trial. It was always a clear case of junk science, and all it had on its side was the high cost/large size and the fact it was promoted by lots of people in positions of authority.

    Maybe it's slightly disappointing that QMUL students seem to have little interest in an international scandal that is coming to shame their insitution, but one of my concerns was that QMUL seemed to be actively promoting a lazy thoughtlessness amongst their staff and students.

    This is the sort of the mentality that concerns me:

    (Original post by GrahamRodney)
    (Original post by Queen Mary University of London)
    (Original post by #PACEtrial)
    Hi there, I'm really concerned about the way in which some researchers at QMUL have been spinning their data, and then attempting to smear patients who are concerned about what they've done. The QMUL administration seems to have also been attempting to portray Freedom of Infomation requests as harassment. There was a report out last week which provides some details on this: http://www.centreforwelfarereform.or...f-recovery.pdf Is this something that others at QMUL are concerned about and trying to fight against, or is no-one really bothered?
    Hi, thanks for getting in touch. Although I am aware of the PACE trial, I am not in a position to respond on behalf of the university. Personally, I do not know enough about the study to comment on it. Sorry to not be of more help. Barts love, Will
    Quite right, *Best to avoid these individuals if at all possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #PACEtrial)
    It's not a surprise that no-one is willing to engage in any sort of debate defending the PACE trial. It was always a clear case of junk science, and all it had on its side was the high cost/large size and the fact it was promoted by lots of people in positions of authority.

    Maybe it's slightly disappointing that QMUL students seem to have little interest in an international scandal that is coming to shame their insitution, but one of my concerns was that QMUL seemed to be actively promoting a lazy thoughtlessness amongst their staff and students.

    This is the sort of the mentality that concerns me:
    Well, it's just possible that they have other things to worry about. like exams, etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GrahamRodney)
    Well, it's just possible that they have other things to worry about. like exams, etc.
    In the five years since PACE was published, it's likely that everyone at QMUL will have had some other things to worry about. People will often have reasons for failing to stand up against abuses of power.

    The behaviour of QMUL as an institution has still been shameful though, and it is somewhat disappointing that so few of those at the university have been willing to speak out about it. It does not reflect well on QMUL as a place of learning, and does reinforce my concerns about the values and standards held and promoted at QMUL.

    As awareness of this scandal continues to spread internationally, I think that it will come to shape how QMUL is viewed more widely, and even those at QMUL concerned only by self-interest should want to put pressure on the QMUL administration to acknowldge and apologise for the problems with the way they have behaved.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: January 16, 2017
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.