I sent a detailed complaint yesterday, 10th June 2011, to Dr Charles Warlow, the Lancet Ombudsman. The length of the complaint precludes full publication on this blog, and the bulk of the complaint reiterates the problems in my original complaint to the Lancet of 25th April. I therefore publish here only the preamble, 3rd complaint, and concluding paragraphs.
Since I first made my complaint to Dr Horton, I have been made aware that the PACE authors have written to Professor Hooper, and that he has responded to them:
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Comments-on-PDW-letter-re-PACE.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet 2011; 377: 823-836.
Dear Dr Warlow,
I am writing to you in your capacity as Ombudsman for the Lancet journal. I am writing to make a complaint about three issues, related to the publishing by the Lancet of the article
and the unsafe claims made within the Lancet article and accompanying editorial: as well as the unsafe claims made elsewhere as a direct result of the publication.The first complaint regards the publication of the article itself,
Friday 10 June 2011
Wednesday 8 June 2011
Self-explanatory: an email sent to Zoe Mullan and Richard Horton of the Lancet
Email from me to Mullan and to Horton (separately) dated 2nd June 2011:
Dear Miss Mullan
Dr Horton has not answered this complaint sent to him 25th April 2011.
If I do not receive, personally, a response from him regarding my specific complaints in 7 days, I will be taking these complaints, and concerns about subsequent behaviour from Dr Horton, to the Lancet Ombudsman.
I have copied him in to this email. As his apparent assistant and previous spokesperson, will you please ensure he is aware of this email.
Many thanks
Angela Kennedy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)