Oh, what a pity. It works fine for me..Domain name isn't resolving for me. Seems they are still having some issues at Virology.
The HRA site indicates that the ten-year-follow-up feasibility study received ethics committee approval on January 3, 2017. The listed sponsor is QMUL, and the contact is Professor White.
So is Professor White conducting this new PACE follow-up study under QMUL’s auspices, or not? If so, why can’t he also provide guidance on FOI requests? If not, who is conducting this trial in his place, and why isn’t that person able to provide guidance on PACE-related FOI requests? Why is QMUL even conducting a new PACE-related study if it no longer employs anyone involved in the trial? Or was the new study cancelled after Professor White’s retirement?
I have sent an e-mail to QMUL’s public relations department seeking clarification on Professor White’s role, if any, in this follow-up PACE research.
From one of the comments
Thank you David for pointing out about Shrodinger's proffessor, who is both not available to work for QMUL in accessing the PACE FIO data and simultaneously available to head up the PACE follow up under QMUL.
This bit about the QMUL data refusal is fascinating:
In the US, data is held in trust for the public. There are legitimate reasons why some data can be withheld, like for security purposes. In my state, refusal or delay in producing information can lead to fines that mount daily.They seem desperate to cover up even at the risk of saying they can't manage trial data properly. If the data was not adequately documented then it suggests they did not have adequate systems to ensure that the results they quote are correct.
As well as White still being involved with new projects they also have a data sharing policy - I assume that this is an admission that the policy is basically a lie.
Or of course as an institution they could have simply decided to mislead the ICO! It would be interesting to know who they asked if the data was available.
Yes, I like the way David has clarified the nonsensical now-you-see-the-data-now-you-don't absurdity, making it obvious for all to see that it is nothing more than a ludicrously childish excuse. The more they resist releasing further data, the more you wonder just what it is they are so desperate to hide. It's beyond pathetic.This bit about the QMUL data refusal is fascinating:
Is this what they've done with the data?The QMUL student newspaper has covered the PACE Trial data in the past. Time for another article?
http://theprintnews.co.uk/?s=PACE+Trial
The more they resist releasing further data, the more you wonder just what it is they are so desperate to hide. It's beyond pathetic.
This is what I'm trying to figure out. They must know this makes them look utterly incompetent. They must know it will be discussed online. There may be other nuggets of dodgy dealing with the PACE trial, but I can't see that it would be so bad, compared to everything else to warrant this.
Something else is going on.
Does make you wonder if the fraud case would be laid open, and they are cr*pping themselves at the thought.As for the PACE scandal always an excuse because they are on the defensive, they essentially committed fraud and have to protect themselves from reality. We should not let this go, can we sue for the data or why its unable to be retrieved, or offer to pay for its release (one day walking into a lab and logging into a computer at his previous salary divide by 365). If we can prove he has gone to the lab since he "retired" thats also evidence they are lying (as if here is any doubt but a court would need physical evidence).
Does make you wonder if the fraud case would be laid open, and they are cr*pping themselves at the thought.