Search results

That was my interpretation on both counts. There was a specific mention by the ICO of redacting comments by AfME rep, and really that is the only chunk that is redacted (apart from what is clearly the discussion about membership). Looks to me like the AfME response to the results. Which...

The paper does name Wessely as a centre leader: 'The centre leaders were BA, TC, Eleanor Feldman, GM, MM, HO, Tim Peto, MS, PDW, DW, and Simon Wessely. The centres were at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; Western General Hospital, Edinburgh; King’s College Hospital, London; John Radcliff e...

I believe it is as Lucy says: Those shots are about the Kings CTU which played a prominent role in the trial. The reference in the minutes ('REDACTED, who is the director of the Clinical Trials Unit at the MRC, has agreed to chair the TSC') is to the MRC CTU and the name redacted is Darbyshire's.

Lucy is right. The chair was (now Dame) Janet Darbyshire.

I haven't heard of any. If I'm honest, I think it would be difficult to make it stick. I think complaints about the SMC need to be made down the political and media route. There is no way it should be receiving public money or treated as an oracle by eg Science Committee or embedded in the BBC.

The ASG is named: The analysis strategy group, chaired by MS, consisted of HLB, TC, JCD, KAG, ALJ, LP, PDW, and RW. The statistical analysis plan was written by the analysis strategy group and approved by the trial steering committee and data monitoring and ethics committee before the analysis...

Yes, that's how it seemed to me. Good post, thanks.

I'd always thought that his vigorous support for the trial had come after its publication, once the journal was invested in the paper. It seems he was onboard from much earlier. It is strange. I think it goes back to the PR the BPS crowd had been running. They clearly had already convinced...

I have now received these minutes. TSC: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1b86k0pvnymko16/TSC.zip?dl=0 TMG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jhxmivxyn9k8lid/TMG.zip?dl=0 I am tired and have only skimmed through them. Major point is how little there is on the changes in protocol. TSC #8 File 20090429 TSC...

Yes, the exemption they claimed was that the information was already in the public domain. The appeal to the ICO was based on fact that not all the information was available. Note also that QMUL for a second time has had its knuckles rapped, as I also complained again about their handling of...

Yeah, I only received the statements yesterday. I'll upload later today and post a link.

I now have those statements. It was my request.

Thanks. That's interesting. I was reading through the stuff yesterday evening, and the study was a disaster. They couldn't get participants. The whole thing is a massive misadventure.

I thought it would be worth checking what was happening with this study. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN72645894 The following are attached: 1. A copy of the trial protocol. 2. A copy of the approval by Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (MREC), 19/01/2012, ref: 11/SW/0301. 3. A copy of...

Thanks for all this work, Lucy.

Yes, FOI. I'm doing my best to get all this correspondence, but they only release a little at a time. If they get lots of FOIs they can claim 'campaign' and 'vexatious' and stop completely.

It was pretty general. I'll give you more details in private.

They have 35 calendar days from 20/02 to provide the information. Now, does 20/02 count? Does the 35th day count? Round about 28/03. 6:00 pm on the 27th?

Not that I know of.