Can anyone help finding the MRC application for the PACE Trial

A person has contacted me to see if I could assist in finding the source/complete document of the application to MRC for the PACE trial. First page of the relevant document is in the picture.

I can be contacted via DM or tomkindlon{a}hotmail.com

 

All I could find on a quick search was the attached file, but that is not what they are looking for, it seems

 

Was here https://www.s4me.info/threads/pace-trial-application-to-mrc-for-funding-in-2002.2323/ but dropbox link expired.

 

Is this not it, further down that thread:

PACE Trial application to MRC for funding in 2002

 

Yes, correct.



How does that answer the question of what the ethical issues are .... ? It feels like what a person might do when trying to evade a question.

 

Given this, there is no way the investigators could legitimately argue, in an unblinded study, that they had no indications of how the outcomes were trending during the course of the trial, especially in its latter stages, well before any formal analysis was done. They could not possibly have been engaging in day-to-day control and not been picking up on such things.

 

Great. I have let my contact know.

 

This is of course true. But unlikely to be persuasive to anyone on that side, since they have always failed to acknowledge the notion that any investigators in an unblinded study relying on subjective outcomes would know anything about the results before unlocking.

 

From the PACE trial application for funding:









But the PACE trial's actual engagement with this was to treat adverse effects as being symptomatic of normal exercise, and for participants to not be worried by it! In effect participants were being experimented on with some of these treatments, given the interventions had the potential to permanently exacerbate symptoms; the fact the investigators did not appreciate this, and paid no heed to it, is immaterial.

 

Hence "legitimately". These days I never make such comments in anticipation of the investigators seeing reason, because that is clearly a no-hoper. In the back of my mind is always the thought that if there is ever any sort of public enquiry (with a view to furthering the best interests of patients and health care), then such observations are potentially worth noting.