MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME

259
• a copy of the original proposal received by the DWP requesting funding for the PACE Trial
• documents that reviewed the request for funding of the PACE Trial
• documents explaining the DWP’s reasons for agreeing to offer funding for the trial.
On 24 th August 2007 the DWP replied by letter saying: “The Department does not hold this information”.
On 1 st October 2007 the DWP was asked to double check that it did not hold the requested information
about its funding of the PACE Trial.
On 5 th November 2007 the DWP replied by letter saying: “I am satisfied that this department does not hold
the information that you request”.
Thus it can be said with certainty that the DWP has no record of the original application for funding of the
PACE Trial; that the DWP has no record of how the application for funding of the PACE Trial was reviewed,
and has no record of why it chose to fund the PACE Trial.
This is astonishing, given that the PACE Trial is the only clinical trial that the DWP has ever funded.
Clearly, therefore, the DWP seems to fail all the criteria from the “Joint policy and guidance to research staff
on the acceptance of external research funding” set out above.
Could this lack of “transparency” concerning the funding ‐‐ using tax‐payers’ money ‐‐ by a Government
body of an MRC clinical trial about which there is serious concern be in any way connected to the fact
that the trial’s Chief Investigator happens to be the DWP’s lead advisor on the disorder in question?
There can be no doubt that there are substantial conflicts of interest on the part of numerous people
involved with the PACE Trial, many of whom ‐‐ as noted above ‐‐ work for the medical and permanent
health insurance industry and thus they cannot but have vested interests in pleasing their paymasters,
whose aim on behalf of shareholders is thought by many not to pay out on a policy if they can possibly
avoid doing so (“UNUM stands to lose millions if we do not move quickly to address this increasing problem”:
UNUM’s CFS Management Plan; Dr Carolyn Jackson, 4 th April 1995). Examples of the failure of
UNUMProvident to honour its obligations can be found in Appendix IV.
Prominent PACE Trial individuals who work for the insurance industry include Professors Peter White,
Michael Sharpe, Simon Wessely and Trudie Chalder. Jessica Bavinton (a physiotherapist who used to work
with Professor White and who co‐authored the PACE Trial GET Manual with him) also does a lot of work
for the same insurance companies. These facts are backed by written evidence.
This important issue of vested interests has been repeatedly raised in the House of Commons (for example
in the 2006 Report of the Gibson Inquiry) and Members of the Scottish Parliament have written to Allied
Dunbar about their concerns over Michael Sharpe’s suitability to give an unbiased view when assessing
people with ME/CFS; Sharpe has asked MSPs to withdraw their statements to Allied Dunbar about him.
With the support of Action for ME, funding of “rehabilitation” (ie. CBT/GET) in the NHS by commercial
bodies, including PRISMA, began before 2002: “One of the major patients charities (Action for ME) is aligning
itself with a more evidence‐based approach……Funding of rehabilitation by commercial bodies has begun in the UK
(with organisations such as PRISMA) and is likely to continue” (Functional Symptoms and Syndromes: Recent
Developments. Michael Sharpe. In: Trends in Health and Disability. UNUMProvident 2002).
PRISMA is a multi‐national healthcare company working with insurance companies; it arranges
“rehabilitation” programmes (ie. GET) for those claiming on their insurance policies and it claims to be