Search results

Merged thread I seem to recall there was something right from soon after the Oxford criteria were created that showed or had Sharpe admitting that something like 43% of patients as diagnosed using Oxford have mental health problems. I may be confusing different papers. Is anyone able to help...

Thanks, Sam. Hehe. Oh dear. We certainly could.

Thanks, Oldtimer. Sorry to hear you have been ill for so long.

Yes, the judge rather likes that line. I think he used it with the SMILE data one. It's not meant unkindly. You know what lawyers are like.

Yes, and I think I had in mind the manuals. The decision does say it is putting things 'crudely' and often quotes other sources about how to describe the illness and the dispute, so I suppose that also is in its favour. I do think that it shows how things are viewed generally.

In fairness to the judge, in my Appeal, I stated the following:

OK, my understanding of the position is that another FOI request would not succeed. Whether more information would be forthcoming if a NICE committee addressed this question and asked for something similar as part of its deliberations is a matter of speculation.

I think this is a bit of a problem, but not one unique to ME. I'm afraid it's how things are now.

It doesn't. But if people are acting together and sending a barrage of requests, then that could lead to a legitimate use of this exemption. Collaboration is fine, but if there is collaboration then the burden of all counts, not just what one individual is sending. Thanks, Rob That is the...

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are asking. As may be seen in the decision, I have asked the same questions of a number of authorities and received replies of sorts. I'm intending at some point to write a blog post with the details.

And an interesting one. In case of misunderstanding, I would point out that should anyone be considering asking something similar as an FOI request, it would be seen as 'vexatious', not only on similar grounds (value to burden) but as an 'asked and answered so simply nuisance'.

Thanks, Michiel. It is indeed a legal interpretation. I don't really have much to add to my replies above.

I think I'd say something like: 3. Mr Peters has myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). The term chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is often, but not always, used interchangeably with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). The Tribunal will refer compendiously to ME/CFS. Mr Peters and others are critical of some...

Data I first requested in October 2016. The IC decided QMUL held the data but were unable to provide it. I appealed. The Tribunal hearing was set for November, but then postponed for a full-day hearing in February. QMUL has though agreed to try to provide it and so I withdrew the appeal. The...

Thanks. Yes, that is what I was thinking of, and you are right that they have worded it carefully.

Actually the manuals do describe the thinking behind CBT and GET and specifically say something like (can't remember exact wording) they're based on there not being a pathological reason for the symptoms.

The way I see it is this: they recognize there has been a burden on QMUL (even if some of it has been self-inflicted) and they accept that there has been a lot of requests (and I have made a few of them), and as they point out, I have pretty much had the second part of my request handed to me...

Hehe. I'm not altogether surprised to hear some may not have managed every word.

Hehe. Yes, I imagined you had, but in case anyone saw 22 pages of a PDF and thought 'too much text' and not read it through.

I view this decision more positively than others. I think it's important to read it in the context of the notice by the ICO which upheld QMUL's exemption, and was highly damaging, and that of previous decisions by the Tribunal. I also think it should be read as a legal document which means...