Simon Wessely: Why PACE investigators aren’t keen on handing over the PLOS One data to Coyne

shadow_man-286x315-272x300

In what has become his characteristic style, Simon Wessely smears me with innuendo, suggesting I might try to alter the PLOS One PACE data and use the altered data to damage the careers of the investigators. He further argues that any release of the data could hurt the careers of the investigators and he understands their resistance. I say “Nonsense! I should be provided with the data as the investigators promised in publishing in PLOS One.”

 

Simon Wessely discreetly stays in the shadows, but he’s been very much involved in the struggle over the PACE trial, including whether the data will be released to me. I first learned from Wessely, not PLOS One, that my asking for data promised as a condition for publishing in the journal had somehow been turned into a Freedom of Information Act request.

But before that, Simon and I were in regular contact by direct messages on Twitter. I gave a talk at King’s College on biomarkers in June 2015. Simon and I later discussed getting a drink together because he was not able to be there. Simon established that he’s a wine guy, not one for scotch or beer.

When I first started tweeting about the PACE study months later, Simon contacted me, asking me not to comment on this study until I had spent months familiarizing myself with it. When that strategy didn’t work, he asked me to tone down my criticism of the PACE study. He even suggested that the PACE investigators would meet me in a public debate that Andre Tomlin of Mental Elf was trying to set up. But Andre later confirmed that the PACE investigators had already indicated there was no way that they would debate me.

Simon has continued to work behind the scenes, conveying vague threats to early investigators who criticize PACE in print. Simon’s nudges have been followed up by further threats from the PACE investigators to the universities of these early investigators.

Journalists have also been contacted by Simon who discouraged them in emails marked confidential from commenting on PACE. Tacky and manipulative because Simon’s emails  came out of the blue, and Simon was suggesting that the journalists  should not tell anyone about them.

Journal editors have been contacted by PACE investigators with efforts to suppress publication of criticism.

Critics have asked Psychological Medicine to publish a letter to the editor reporting the switched scoring of PACE outcomes that had substantially inflated the recovery rates reported in that journal in 2013. The editor, Robin Murray – a close colleague of Simon’s at King’s College, London – rejected the possibility of any letter based only on re-analyses. Rather, any correction would have to be based on an independent replication of the £5 million study in another sample.

Something is rotten in the UK, not just the State of Denmark.

anna-sheridan-wood-2When one highly professional and mild-mannered early career researcher requested a small amount of data from the PACE trial, the PACE investigators did a background check on her and attacked her character. Her request was labeled “vexatious” and refused.

Nonetheless, a group of patients teamed up with an early career investigator.  Relying on normative data and reanalysis of the outcomes originally specified  in the PACE protocol, they concluded: 

None of the changes made to PACE recovery criteria were adequately justified. Further, the final definition was so lax that on some criteria, it was possible to score below the level required for trial entry, yet still be counted as ‘recovered’. When recovery was defined according to the original protocol, recovery rates in the GET and CBT groups were low and not significantly higher than in the control group (4%, 7% and 3%, respectively).

Critics need to be protected from bullying and their efforts to secure the data need to be supported. As I have noted before, the success of attempts to correct the untrustworthiness of the scientific literature depend on critics getting access to data, especially when replications are not feasible. That’s why the situation with the withholding of the PACE data should concern everybody, not just those focused on chronic fatigue syndrome.

It’s been over a year since I requested the PLOS One data. It wasn’t through a Freedom of Information Act request. I’m determined that early in the new year either I will get the data released or the PLOS One paper will be retracted. Stay tuned.

But for now, here is a communication from Simon to a patient who had tweeted about the PACE data back in March 2016. Some of the excuses made for not sharing the data with me were tried out at the UK Lower Tribunal and soundly rejected. Nonetheless, the excuses continue to be made by the PACE investigators to the press through the Science Media Centre London, which orchestrated the team’s unsuccessful effort to get Parliament to exclude university research from Freedom of Information Act requests.

There is international consensus that the usefulness of data sharing will be seriously compromised if those of us who request data are screened for whether the original authors think we have been naughty or nice. We are not asking the original authors to play Santa.

The many things that the PACE investigators have done with their data require forensic exploratory analyses of what the data may be hiding. This is especially important because of the policy implications that they are claiming and the financial benefits they are gaining from ties to the insurance and re-insurance industries.*

 The email:

 …I doubt anyone would actually be surprised to learn that they are not keen on handing anything over to someone who says they are “at war” with the PIs, that they are “coming to get your pathetic little trial”  and so on and so forth.  Hardly disinterested academic inquiry.   But I can tell you they do want to release the data, because they have absolutely nothing at all to hide, but it does come down to trust.  I have been suggesting that the sooner they get a robust system set up, which excludes them, the easier life will be for everyone.  And I am sorry, but there have to be safeguards.  For  a start, there are legal obligations on data sharing on any doctor.   And these are not easy to fulfil.  And there is the issue of consent…you simply cannot just ride over it.  And I am afraid some of the tweets do show a total lack of understanding what you can do with data, should you be so inclined.  And if you do that, then that becomes a serious charge against whoever gave you that data.  And in the weird, paranoid, sulphurous world of ME… I am afraid that fanciful notions of someone trying to do that, just to make life difficult and indeed possibly professionally terminal, for the PIs, is something that they don’t dismiss, and neither would I.   so it takes time to get it right.  and lawyers are going to be involved – because it’s a very complex area of the law.  I have actually written on data confidentiality for the academy of medical sciences, so I know of what I speak.  No one is going to hand over any data set these days without a data sharing agreement – I think you do really believe that you get a request, and say  “OK, now, where the CD, ah yes, let me put in the post for you”.   No academic would ever do that, they would be insane, and would probably also be unemployed fairly quickly

In fact the more intemperate some people become over the this, that just makes it worse, and also makes it easier for the PIs to perfectly legitimately use the current legal framework not to share data, because they are worried about all this, and so would I be, if it was.   They are worried about active malice – there are people out there who have downloaded my powerpoints, changed them (guess how) and then circulated false versions to make me look like an ogre – which is why for many years now I never ever allow my powerpoints to be placed in any public place, as usually happens with conferences  remember there are people also, and you know as well as I do who they are, who make up quotes claiming they are from me or peter and co – so its not paranoid to worry about what such people might do with a data set.

The other problem is that speaking frankly, I would say that nearly everyone who can analyse large clinical trial datasets, doesn’t have the slightest interest in doing so.  They don’t care.  PACE looks pretty good to the professionals.  I know you don’t believe that, but it does.

Anyway, I have been suggesting quietly that the sooner they rid of the issue – get the Wellcome, MRC or the US centres that provide a data sharing service  (there are several by the way)  to take this – then they can deal with the data sharing agreements, they can decide if Jim Coyne should get It and give reasons if not, they can police the system, they can check the pre specifcied analytic strategy  (which for sure will be required, trust me – no one is going to be permitted just to do random fishing exercises, because we all know that will create utterly spurious results which will do fantastic harm) –  but guess what,  some of these august bodies are not too keen .  I wonder why……

So I think it will happen. Its not been made easier by someone develop an illness I am afraid, which is certainly stress related  (when KCL said that they were concerned about the health of their eployees they were spot on).  But it will take time.  And here I do agree with you – the sooner it taken away from the PACE team the better for everyone.

Because there isn’t a smoking gun.  Sorry,…but there isn’t.  its just a well conducted huge trial with a rather modest but still useful result that adds to the evidence for the safety and efficacy of CBT and GET, which will remain the treatment of choice until something better comes along.  Because there isn’t anything else at the moment.

Simon

*Here is the declaration of conflict of interest that accompanied the 2011 article in The Lancet:

 PDW has done voluntary and paid consultancy work for the UK Departments of Health and Work and Pensions and Swiss Re (a reinsurance company). DLC has received royalties from Wiley. JB was on the guideline development group of the National Institute for Healthand Clinical Excellence guidelines for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis and has undertaken paid work for the insurance industry. GM has received royalties from Karnac. TC has done consultancy work for insurance companies and has received royalties from Sheldon Press and Constable and Robinson. MB has received royalties from Constable and Robinson. MS has done voluntary and paid consultancy work for government and for legal and insurance companies, and has received royalties from Oxford University Press. ALJ, BA, HLB, LVC, JCD, KAG, LP, MM, PM, HO, RW, and DW declare that they have no conflicts of interests.

ebook_mindfulness_345x550I will soon be offering scientific writing courses on the web as I have been doing face-to-face for almost a decade. Sign up at my new website to get notified about these courses, as well as upcoming blog posts at this and other blog sites.  Get advance notice of forthcoming e-books and web courses. Lots to see at CoyneoftheRealm.com

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Simon Wessely: Why PACE investigators aren’t keen on handing over the PLOS One data to Coyne

  1. Thanks for this post and sharing Simon’s email.
    I think his comment “in the weird, paranoid, sulphurous world of ME” sums up his attitude to ME patients and the illness itself.
    Interesting also that he mentions creating “utterly spurious results which will do fantastic harm”. He is talking about what can be done by others re-analysing released data but I think that it applies perfectly to what was done by PACE Researchers to the data.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The same people also asked for PACE trial data. These unsubstantiated and debunked tales about death threats, dangerous activists, borderline psychopaths seeking to harass PACE trial participants, harassment of researchers, vexatious FOI requests, and so on are irrelevant. Respected scientists are asking for the data, and there is no excuse whatsoever to withold it from them. It only reinforces the suspicion that the data is toxic and will bring someone’s career to an abrupt end as Wessely hints at.

      Like

  2. And this is the man who will be the president of the RSM next year… RIP Medicine, welcome misinformation, further abuse of all medical patients and the lining of the pockets of his cronies….

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Thanks James, for sticking with flushing out the truth about the PACE trial. There is so much data hidden away, that isn’t seeing the light of day. We know that at least some of the participants reported deterioration, that was objectively demonstrated by their increases in resting heart rate. This data, reports of not being able to walk for days after completing the 6 minute walking test. The failure of objectively measuring activity at the end of the trial – Simon Wessley claims that the participants were too ill to wear the activity monitors that they were well enough to wear at the start of the trial??? So these “recovered”, “improved” people were now, too ill to wear a 28g monitor?? A unique spin on the meaning of recovery……Mark Van Ness shows that the 6 minute walking test results demonstrate that the participants were still severely disabled…. missing 6 minute walking test data… A tiny little graph in Appendix 2, of the follow up paper shows that at long term follow up the standard medical care (a fancy way of saying no treatment) and the adaptive pacing group were the most able. Hardly a resounding endorsement for GET and CBT – if in the long term you are better off without it.

    Like

  4. If the world of ME is sulphurous, that makes Simon Wessely the Sulphur King.

    It’s amusing that he simultaneously says that the PACE data and its interpretation is pristine, yet if it was released to someone else they could easily twist the data around and publish something entirely different without consequence. Why do you think we want to see the data Simon? If we could twist the data, the PIs could just as easily twist it. And given the recently released reanalysis, it appears that they have. And now that the data is in the open, where is all the damage that the PIs said would come from it? Where are all the re-identified, outed PACE patients being harassed? I seem to have missed it.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. The psychiatrists are definitely not talking about the same ME illness as I do. Indeed there is something rotten in this intimate psychiatric lobby, when they keep claiming GET and CBT are safe.

    Like

    • Simon Wessely states in his email: “No one is going to hand over any data set these days without a data sharing agreement – I think you do really believe that you get a request, and say “OK, now, where the CD, ah yes, let me put in the post for you”. No academic would ever do that, they would be insane, and would probably also be unemployed fairly quickly”.

      (1): quotes of authors in a recent paper in BMJOpen rebut the above statements about data sharing.
      Copy pasted from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/10/e011784.full (‘Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study’, published 13 October 2016):
      “Authors’ responses to data sharing. The authors who made their data sets available did so with positive and encouraging words.
      Here are a few examples:
      Good luck with your project, I am a firm supporter of open access to data.
      Thank you very much for you interest in our study. We adhere the BMJ data sharing policy indeed. Please find attached the data files.
      One researcher went so far as to offer to translate the data set into English.”

      (2): a quote of authors of a paper with a Pubpeer entry also rebuts the above statements of Simon Wessely about data sharing. Copy pasted from https://pubpeer.com/publications/9CF91F106B93B5C6B991FE56D6CD9C
      (a): “We reviewed this paper in journal club and have major concerns about the validity of the data” (a quote from the first posting, posted on 17 December 2016);
      (b): “We thank PubPeer for the opportunity to further discuss our paper and we appreciate the authors of this comment for reading our paper with a critical eye.” (….) If you wish to examine raw data, like z-stacks used in imaging analysis, please contact Li-Huei Tsai, the corresponding author of the manuscript.” (a quote from a lengthy response of the authors, posted on 19 December 2016).

      Liked by 1 person

  6. The strange thing is is that Simon Wessely really DOES believe that the PACE study is impeccable. He has somehow become deluded or blinded, or misinformed, perhaps by his own statisticians or other misguided individuals, that all is ok in Disneyland. How much outside influence from insurance companies went into all of this delusion, either overtly, covertly or subliminally? I myself remember efforts by a drug company to groom me along certain lines of thinking and then asked if I would do a tour of all the countries around SE Asia to speak on behalf of this particular antibiotic, all expenses paid. I rejected these proposals and all hell broke lose. However, I know of several very CHARMING individuals, with great salesmanship skills, rise to the top of their fields (and their pockets full – those were the days!!!) BECAUSE of the huge support that companies like the one who approached me gave to such people.

    Like so many speakers in the past, no names mentioned, a cycle of mutual support from speaker to audience to speaker creates a state of reinforcement whereby the uncertain speaker now is absolutely certain of the truth of his own words. He cannot know otherwise, because his mind has become acutely tunnel visioned and indoctrinated by this strange admiration effect.

    I have always maintained that one cannot argue with either the arrogant or the ignorant. I know that Sir Simon is very arrogant, but I feel he has become the latter too, not necessarily by design in either case.

    Simon will continue to lead his sheep, as if he is their impeccable warrior for the cause, maintaining a cult leader like status that few of his kind will even think of challenging, because they too are believers in his nonsense. A greater degree of high reasoning, a wider scope of reading (like biological evidence that undermines their beliefs) and so on, are not in their skill sets to understand.

    This is a phenomenon. It exists as such and no more. Stronger evidence will overtake it, and even Simon himself says that his belief system is the best because it is the best at the moment (hmmm), despite so much evidence invisible to him, that speaks to the contrary.

    Like

  7. I don’t think we need to trouble ourselves with this small-minded individual. The laws of the universe are rapidly burying him without any focused assistance.
    We’ll forgive him for being human, for his avarice.
    We are infinitely stronger and magnanimous.
    Be at peace and watch the story unfold.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s