1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

UK Health Research Authority defends PACE. Answer to MP's question, February 2019.

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by ME/CFS Skeptic, Feb 6, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Binkie4

    Binkie4 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,304
    https://www.s4me.info/threads/nice-...deline-committee-has-now-been-published.6197/

    #726
    In correspondence with Nice about the members of the GDG, Nice openly stated that they were dealing with declared conflicts of interest.

    “2. Please explain how anyone with any knowledge of the scientific advances in the field of ME/CFS could possibly be expected to take this review seriously in view of the committee announced?

    As a result of concerns raised with the appointments made so far we have reviewed the appointments and we consider that they are appropriate and that any interests that the committee members have declared can be managed using our policy on declaring and managing interests for NICE advisory committees.” ( Apology for lack of bolting- iPad)

    Who is dealing with undeclared conflicts of interest? How are they being managed?
     
    MEMarge likes this.
  2. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,134
    Location:
    Canada
    Not completely sure this works but you could try: nigel.hawkes1@btinternet.com
     
    Esther12 likes this.
  3. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Could be worth doing a Rapid Response to the article. If they've mischaracterised you that could mean they'd be more likely to publish your letter. Saying that, the BMJ does have a clear history of shittyness.
     
    MEMarge, Dolphin, rvallee and 3 others like this.
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Have people posted the HRA's introductory page for this letter yet? Some annoying stuff there considering how slip-shod the letter sent was, eg:

    https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/new...-science-and-technology-committees-questions/

    Re-hashing some of QMUL's spin must have been a real challenge for the HRA. Luckily they had the time and resources required.

    It also links to this blog on COIs, which includes:

    https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/conflicts-interest-blog-hra-chair-jonathan-montgomery/
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
    rvallee, Sly Saint and JohnM like this.
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Binkie4, Hutan, JellyBabyKid and 9 others like this.
  6. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,267
    Location:
    London, UK
    There is an issue about ethics that I have been intending to raise in another context.

    The CBT used in PACE was, as I understand it, based on concepts such as 'educating patients' and using 'cognitive strategies' to persuade them that their views about their physical capacities were erroneous. However, there was never reliable evidence that their views were erroneous and still isn't.

    This implies that when consent was obtained it was not based on honest information, which is unethical. The detail in the material in the information sheets and the newsletter may be relevant here. There is of course a catch22 in that the trial was only ethical if the authors did not know whether or not this education was valid (equipoise). But the original account of the method by Wessely and Chalder emphasises that persuading the patient of its validity is essential to the technique.

    My feeling is that this problem is too complicated for the HRA to be expected to understand, but it is a serious ethical issue now, since we still have no reliable evidence and no doubt CBT patients are being 'educated' that they will get better if they believe what the therapist says.
     
  7. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Does a similar argument also apply to GET? What solid evidence was there that encouraging people to repeatedly ignore their bodies' natural safety warnings was in fact safe, especially when the underlying physical problem was only assumed to be deconditioning. The PACE paper tacitly acknowledged that the true disease mechanism was not understood with any real certainty. As per my post #95.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
    Binkie4, MEMarge, Forestvon and 16 others like this.
  8. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    I don't get the feeling that HRA is concerned with whether REC decisions are based on the proper science. I think they're only interested in whether the appropriate procedures were followed, even if the study is garbage.
     
  9. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    i.e. Just interested in ensuring they have a get-out-of-jail-free card.
     
  10. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    Maybe. I think their remit really is limited, and the report needs to be read in that light. which no one is doing, of course, especially the ideological brigades.
     
    MEMarge, ladycatlover, Inara and 10 others like this.
  11. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,488
    Location:
    Belgium
    Don't know if this has already been highlighted or not, but re-reading the HRA letter, they seem to actually confirm that patients were not informed about the PACE-trial researchers' consultancy work to insurance companies.
    But then they try to argue that this - somehow - does not constitute a conflict of interest...
     
  12. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    yes, and here's the issue with that. At the time, there were no prevailing UK requirements that these links be disclosed--the HRA is right about that. However, I have always made the argument not based on the fact that they didn't disclose but that they violated their own protocol in not disclosing. In promising to follow the Declaration of Helsinki, they bound themselves to its disclosure provisions, which are not ambiguous or confusing. For whatever reasons, the HRA is apparently not concerned with this type of protocol violation but with whether the actions breeched UK law/policy at the time.
     
  13. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,573
    Location:
    UK
    MEMarge, Dolphin, DokaGirl and 2 others like this.
  14. MeSci

    MeSci Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,437
    Location:
    Cornwall, UK
    MEMarge and ladycatlover like this.
  15. Suffolkres

    Suffolkres Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,522
    https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/af056282-eb9a-4cad-b57a-66247a524b1f?in=11:12:35 Watch, he is in the spotlight!

    • 09:26:09
      Subject: Research integrity
    • 09:26:10
      Witnesses: Professor Sir Bernard Silverman, Chair of Trustees, and James Parry, Chief Executive, UK Research Integrity Office
    • 10:23:55
      Witnesses: Dr Tony Peatfield, Director of Corporate Affairs, Medical Research Council, and Chairman, RCUK Good Research Conduct Network, and Dr Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy, Higher Education Funding Council for England
    • 11:12:35
      Witnesses: Professor Jonathan Montgomery, Chair, Health Research Authority
     

    Attached Files:

    MEMarge, Barry, chrisb and 2 others like this.
  16. Mithriel

    Mithriel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,815
    These people are like drug dealers, they peddle their products with no regard to the devastation they cause. If they were genuinely interested in their patients they would be striving to find why people claim to get worse. Maybe they would not want to interact with patients (the angry horde) but they should be requesting talks with the likes of Jonathon Edwards or David Tuller to try to find some way out of this mess.
     
  17. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    I would call their logic and level of integrity to be Trump-like.
     
    MEMarge, ladycatlover, Barry and 9 others like this.
  18. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    I'm wondering if it would be worth someone pulling together a detailed explanation for Norman Lamb to explain the issues that are being glossed over by the HRA response and their attitude that if there is paper work filed then that is ok.
     
    MEMarge, ladycatlover, Barry and 13 others like this.
  19. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    I'd be interested to see where their remit is laid out in such a way that it compels an investigation in PACE to be like the one reported.
     
    MEMarge, Barry, Dolphin and 2 others like this.
  20. Suffolkres

    Suffolkres Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,522
    I think that's a good idea starting with "honest John's" witness statement to the Select committee https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/af056282-eb9a-4cad-b57a-66247a524b1f?in=11:12:35 among st the others reps MRC RCUK, Sir Bernard Silverman stating they rely on funding from the Universities and being quizzed by Norman Lamb, putting his lawyer's hat on and suggesting that to be a conflict of interest.......!!!
     
    MEMarge and DokaGirl like this.

Share This Page