David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Letter to Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee

http://www.virology.ws/2018/07/11/trial-by-error-my-letter-to-the-science-and-technology-committee/

 

Thank you, @dave30th, for keeping the pressure on and sending all these letters. Surely one of them will find someone actually prepared to do his/her job.

 

@dave30th seems to be on a roll.

One might wonder if 'harassing' the establishment like this might lead to a dead end - a bit like trying to get Mr trump's tax account published.

However, I am reminded that some time around 1990 a particularly persistent medical trainee harassed the establishment in this sort of way and the surprising result was a complete overhaul of medical training in the UK.

 

Well if they could actually refute anything, that would help. but since they can't and they just remain silent or post opaque editor's notes that are content-less, they end up looking like losers. (I hope, anyway.) I don't think there is a shortage of people to whom I can write letters, nor a shortage of upcoming news events on which to comment in follow-up letters.

 

Who was that?

 

yes what's that about?

 

I see where your going but if you don't try then you are even less likely to succeed

Sometimes it comes down to luck or being in the right place at the right time or having a persuasive argument in the right place/time

Pressure works wonders in politics, lobbyists get their way because they put pressure on governments to give industry what they want so i see this as a way to get us into more discourse and add pressure to get us recognized and funded

 

It's such a pain that the Establishment is such a temperamental creature. It can be hard to know how to get it to start behaving better.

 

Actually its very simple, voters need to vote for improvement instead of lies or single issues while avoiding everything else.

 

I agree

It is, voters want lies and vote for them so we get them. If voters want progress then they need to vote for it and stop voting for lies.

 

I was trying to make the point that historically the UK medical establishment may have proved rather more like a rubber tree plant than the pessimists that we all tend to be (except maybe David) assume.

The medical trainee was called Ricky Goldstein. He had problems getting accredited as a consultant and complained that the system was unfair. He complained repeatedly enough for the government to have to set up a public enquiry under Sir Kenneth Calman and Calman was forced to conclude that our training system was not consistent with EU regulations and had to be completely dismantled and overhauled. At least that is how I remember it.

 

Lets hope that the biggest medical scandal of the 21st century plus lots of agitation leads to some heads rolling

 

It is difficult to know in the long run what strategy will be best, however in this case there are clear problems and simple remedies that are obviously being blocked by editors' prevarication and obfuscation, so I think so far @dave30th is being self evidently rational and direct. Most, except the recipients of these emails, must see their clarity and directness a refreshing antidote to the British over politeness and fear of conflict that must be a factor in the small coterie of BPSers previous successful highjacking of the UK's ME/CFS agenda.

 

I've tried to be very clear and specific and to keep repeating over and over again the very obvious problems with these studies, without making overly broad or ad hominem accusations. I think I'm making progress in denting the implacable resistance to acknowledging any problems--at BMJ if not the Lancet. Certainly the letters are meant to put the editors in the awkward position of either explaining to colleagues at similar levels why so many experts and MPs are signing protest letters or why a research study was allowed to unilaterally exempt itself from ethics approval, or not responding. That's not a great choice. It is interesting that Archives felt compelled to post a notice on the LP paper that essentially confirms the concerns by failing to refute them but otherwise provides no concrete information--except that the investigators have submitted some sort of explanation for the whole mess. Presumably the editors recognize they will have to provide more information at some point. They know they can't justify it. So it is a bit mystifying that they don't understand it would be better to get it all over with and 'fess up. Perhaps they are concerned that one retraction--or a major correction that essentially debunks the findings of, say, the LP study--won't be the last. People might start scouring all of these studies for flaws, even more than they already are.

 

I think they are trying to feel their way here. They know they are screwed, but can't suss (or at least agree amongst themselves) what they should best do. So in true British style when faced with such a conundrum ... they choose to do nothing.

 

Drink tea and wait. Surprisingly effective.

 

Quite so. They always got away with it before the modern age of social media, but now it's not so simple.

 

Just a cautionary note, as I wander around these threads rather slowly.

@dave30th the MPs are now on recess, if you were to enquire to the Committee generic email address why you have received no response, I expect that you would get a standard response saying that it will be reviewed fully when they are all back in September.

I would hope that as your letter was early July, someone may have taken it under their wing before recess but......

I do, however, have great hopes for the Science and Technolgy Committee in view of good MPs who belong (Carol M) and Chairman Norman Lamb’s recent letter
https://www.parliament.uk/documents...ght-centre-for-data-ethics-and-innovation.pdf