1. Read the 'News in Brief' post for w/c 14th Oct, Guest, by clicking here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

REC advice on PACE trial data changed in favour of release

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by JohnTheJack, Jul 11, 2019.

  1. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    12,624
    I pursued this after the failure of PLOSONE to make the researchers hand over the data in compliance with the journal policy. The researchers relied on the REC.

    See Expression of Concern and Response here:
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177037

    I asked the REC to reconsider. They did but confirmed the decision. I appealed. The decision was confirmed. I appealed to the Chief Executive of the HRA. I received the decision this morning.

    The REC advice now is that data should be released. I have emailed PLOSONE asking them in light of this change to enforce their conditions of publication and require the sharing of the data.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    3,367
    Thank you for your tenacity!
     
    Forbin, Joel, Barry and 30 others like this.
  3. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    6,757
    Location:
    Australia
    Wow, very interesting!
     
    Joel, Barry, Annamaria and 15 others like this.
  4. Adam pwme

    Adam pwme Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    Excellent Thanks John.
     
  5. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    7,621
    Likes Received:
    56,143
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Great work John.

    I assume in this bit
    the FTT referred to was Alem's appeal?
     
    James, Chezboo, Barry and 19 others like this.
  6. EzzieD

    EzzieD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    2,760
    Location:
    UK
    Wow, that's an amazing achievement - well done!
     
    Barry, Sean, Annamaria and 13 others like this.
  7. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    12,624
    Thanks.

    Yes, I relied heavily on Matthees. It's asburd for the ICO and FTT to be saying one thing and the REC another.

    Note also 'majority finding'. The researchers have tried to make heavy play of that, but it's meaningless. Once a court/tribunal has decided, it's decided.
     
    andypants, James, Sly Saint and 34 others like this.
  8. Binkie4

    Binkie4 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    9,214
    Thank you John. Your persistence defies belief. Thank you for doing this.
     
    hinterland, Webdog, Sean and 16 others like this.
  9. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    867
    Likes Received:
    8,718
    An excellent result @JohnTheJack , I commend your persistence. It will be interesting if the Journal now up holds its own policies.
     
    Sean, Liessa, Channa and 16 others like this.
  10. Medfeb

    Medfeb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    2,093
    Chezboo, Sean, Channa and 13 others like this.
  11. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,048
    Likes Received:
    19,409
    Location:
    UK
    Well done, @JohnTheJack. Appalling that you should have had to go through such a battle.
     
    Chezboo, Sean, Channa and 15 others like this.
  12. Simone

    Simone Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    2,819
    Location:
    Australia
    Well done, @JohnTheJack. It’s unbelievable (and yet, totally believable) how hard you’ve had to fight for this.
     
    Chezboo, Sean, Annamaria and 15 others like this.
  13. Simon M

    Simon M Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    4,017
    Location:
    UK
    Great work, @JohnTheJack

    I liked the way the letter ended:

    Your appeal has therefore been upheld.

    Please accept my thanks for bringing this to our attention. As you may be aware, the HRA is consulting on transparency and openness in health and social care research and would be keen to hear your views on the development of the final transparency strategy.
     
    andypants, Webdog, obeat and 34 others like this.
  14. Daisymay

    Daisymay Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    4,671
    Excellent result, thanks so very much indeed for you dogged work on all of this, stellar! And of course always remembering Alem's part in all of this x
     
    MEMarge, Webdog, Esther12 and 16 others like this.
  15. Michiel Tack

    Michiel Tack Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    11,335
    Location:
    Belgium
    Well done John! Interesting to see how this will develop. This is a bit embarrassing for PLOS ONE as well I suppose. I hope that they will now require the sharing of the data but I really don't want that McCrone et al. 2012 paper to be retracted because it contains some of the objective data of the PACE-trial.
     
    Yvonne, MEMarge, Esther12 and 18 others like this.
  16. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    12,624
    Thanks for the kind words everyone. I won't really reply to individual posts but I have read them all.

    Yes, I agree it is, especially as we have been pressing them on this for some time. I first responded over two years ago https://johnthejack.com/2017/05/04/a-response-to-the-blog-by-puebla-and-heber-of-plos-one/ and then had an email exchange with Heber this year, first after an FOI request revealed the actual REC advice and then after QMUL released some of the data in question. He refused to budge. Now, surely, they must.

    I think McCrone will now release the data rather than have the paper retracted.
     
    Snowflake, James, MEMarge and 27 others like this.
  17. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    19,968
    Location:
    Canada
    Odds of the paper being retracted instead of having to share the data? 2:1?

    Can they do that, take their ball and go home instead of complying with something that will be highly damaging?
     
  18. dangermouse

    dangermouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    3,677
  19. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    12,624
    I would put sharing data 19:1.

    The data is gradually coming out and they must see that so better that than suffer the indignity of a retraction.
     
  20. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    19,968
    Location:
    Canada
    I guess that's one of the lessons from the first release of PACE data: it made almost no difference to have their BS exposed. If inflating the efficacy of their treatment 6x and basically cherry-picking the outcome they wanted had little impact, it's probably a safe bet that it will make little difference again, in the short term anyway.

    There's some relief in knowing they'll eventually face retraction anyway. It's just a question of how much time and how many more lives are broken in the process.

    James Coyne was one who made a lot of noise about this dataset. Is he still interested?
     
    Yvonne, MEMarge, Webdog and 9 others like this.

Share This Page