David Tuller: Trial By Error: BMJ and Bristol's Ethics Exemptions

[Kalliope]

BMJ and Bristol's Ethics Exemptions

Earlier today, I sent the following e-mail to Dr Fiona Godlee, editorial director of BMJ. I cc’d Carol Monaghan MP, Darren Jones MP, and Nicky Morgan MP. I also cc’d Teresa Allen of the Health Research Authority.

 

[ScottTriGuy]

I wonder if the BMJ admits to the 5 errors David has listed, they may be more vulnerable to a lawsuit. It would seem all of the children and adults in those 5 studies were deceived, and that deception was endorsed by the BMJ.

If so, they may continue their ignore and deny approach in hopes he goes away.

But they may also pay out quickly if slapped with lawsuits and media attention.

 

[DokaGirl]

Thank you @dave30th.

Makes one wonder what else is going on in science. Unbeknownst to trusting citizens, it appears those with influence are able to facilitate approvals for all manner of products, research etc., that with deeper scrutiny would not pass inspection.

 

[NelliePledge]

Darren Jones was a new name to me. Labour MP for Bristol North West and has a science background - degree in human bioscience (covered immunology) and was a lawyer before going into politics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Jones_(politician)

 

[Peter T]

Not with it now, but will try tomorrow to compile a list of education and health authorities involved, to know which local papers and MPs are relevant.

 

[Alvin]

But they may also pay out quickly if slapped with lawsuits and media attention.

This can be a good idea. I have argued against lawsuits against PACE itself right now because a disease mechanism would lead towards a slam dunk and we don't have that yet but in individual cases it might be a great strategy, illegal activities leading to publicity and payments or a judgement against the defendants could help move things along and get redress.

 

[Barry]

I wonder if the BMJ admits to the 5 errors David has listed, they may be more vulnerable to a lawsuit.

You could well be right. Their lawyers almost certainly insist they admit to absolutely nothing, especially not in writing.

 

[Daisybell]

I wonder at what point the weight of the constant pressure will get too much for them....and I like the comment underneath your post @dave30th - ‘still waiting for godlee’!!

 

[chrisb]

BMJ group journals have a curious history over ME. I had forgotten about the strange incident of Malcolm Hooper's retraction that never was, as described in this article by Margaret Williams on p 7 @C.

www.margaretwilliams.me/2016/pace-trial-did-not-go-unchallenged.pdf

 

[It's M.E. Linda]

Darren Jones was a new name to me. Labour MP for Bristol North West and has a science background - degree in human bioscience (covered immunology) and was a lawyer before going into politics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Jones_(politician)

Another member of the Science and Technology Committee with Carol M. His constituents have successfully been educating him on M.E.!

 

[NelliePledge]

Another member of the Science and Technology Committee with Carol M. His constituents have successfully been educating him on M.E.!

Marvellous

 

[inox]

I'm just.... Why...??

Or rather, why not. Why not make sure you have all your work passed by an ethics commitee.....? Espescially when you are working with and studying children. Shouldn't that be ingrained in any researcher, as a "do not pass start without it".

Why risk all that work, and your reputation?

As for BMJ, my guess would be they never checked ethics approval, other than maybe seeing it mentioned. It probably never occured to them, that someone would actually do this.

 

[Barry]

Why risk all that work, and your reputation?

Because they thought they could get away with it? Because they were so convinced they know best, so decide to play god and effectively do their own ethics 'approval'?

And as I write that, the sad irony (and criminality?) of it is evident. The very people believing their is no need for ethics approval of their research (because that is the essence of what they did), in so doing demonstrated very clearly how low their 'ethics' are.

 

[rvallee]

I'm just.... Why...??

Or rather, why not. Why not make sure you have all your work passed by an ethics commitee.....? Espescially when you are working with and studying children. Shouldn't that be ingrained in any researcher, as a "do not pass start without it".

Why risk all that work, and your reputation?

As for BMJ, my guess would be they never checked ethics approval, other than maybe seeing it mentioned. It probably never occured to them, that someone would actually do this.

I think they just don't consider any of this to be genuine meaningful research so it does not apply. They know it's a fake disease so nothing they do actually needs to go through the normal process of medical research. In the end they believe they'll be proven right and that going around the normal process is a net positive.

This is pretty clear given everything about psychosocial "research" operates using the very, very loose rules and methodologies of clinical psychology while being given exactly as much weight as large, objective, double-blinded longitudinal studies involving tens of thousands of patients followed methodically. All the benefits, none of the accountability. They operate out of ideology, not science, and that gives them every exemption in practice since people don't care what happens to us.

Of course that's not how any of this works and this is also precisely how psychiatry has harmed untold millions, by exempting themselves from normal medicine and claiming patients to be theirs and working on them away from prying eyes. Given the history of medicine, there should be extra careful attention given to making sure it never happens again. Instead, authorities are complicit in egregious ethical lapses. No lesson learned when contempt and prejudice frame every conversation on a topic.

 

[ScottTriGuy]

I think they just don't consider any of this to be genuine meaningful research so it does not apply. They know it's a fake disease so nothing they do actually needs to go through the normal process of medical research. In the end they believe they'll be proven right and that going around the normal process is a net positive.

This is pretty clear given everything about psychosocial "research" operates using the very, very loose rules and methodologies of clinical psychology while being given exactly as much weight as large, objective, double-blinded longitudinal studies involving tens of thousands of patients followed methodically. All the benefits, none of the accountability. They operate out of ideology, not science, and that gives them every exemption in practice since people don't care what happens to us.

Of course that's not how any of this works and this is also precisely how psychiatry has harmed untold millions, by exempting themselves from normal medicine and claiming patients to be theirs and working on them away from prying eyes. Given the history of medicine, there should be extra careful attention given to making sure it never happens again. Instead, authorities are complicit in egregious ethical lapses. No lesson learned when contempt and prejudice frame every conversation on a topic.

On point. Could not have said it better.