Professor James Coyne is an American psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. He is currently the 2015 Carnegie Centenary Visiting Professor at University of Stirling, Scotland. He is also a Professor of Health Psychology, University Medical Ctr., Groningen and University of the Netherlands and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Institute for Health Policy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. He has written over 350 papers and chapters, and was recently designated one of the 200 most eminent psychologists of the second half of the 20th century.
Talks & interviews[edit | edit source]
- 13 October 2017 - #Unrest, Presentation in Amsterdam as part of the Unrest film promotion on British and Dutch research including the PACE trial
- February 2016 - Professor James Coyne Presentation on PACE Trial - Belfast
- November 2015 - James Coyne: A skeptical look at the PACE chronic fatigue trial - Part 1
Writings on ME/CFS and PACE trial[edit | edit source]
Mind the Brain blog[edit | edit source]
- 12 Jan 2018 - When psychotherapy trials have multiple flaws…
- 9 Jan 2018 - Accompanied suicide: A Swedish woman with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome chooses death over further suffering
- 28 Dec 2017 - Better days: When PLOS Blogs honored my post about fatal flaws in the PACE chronic fatigue syndrome follow-up study (2015)
- 15 Nov 2017 - Stop using the Adverse Childhood Experiences Checklist to make claims about trauma causing physical and mental health problems
- 17 Sept 2017 - Embargo broken: Bristol University Professor to discuss trial of quack chronic fatigue syndrome treatment
Quick Thoughts Blog[edit | edit source]
(31 July 2017 - James Coyne announced on Facebook that both PLOS Mind the Brain and the Journal of Health Psychology had been pressured and threatened to censor the growing criticism of the PACE trial by one of advocates of the trial .  )
- 1 Aug 2017 - Part 2: What to look for in a Special Issue of Journal of Health Psychology concerning the PACE trial
- 31 Jul 2017 - What to look for in the Special Issue of Journal of Health Psychology concerning the PACE trial
- 30 Jul 2017 -Last ditch attempt to block publication of special issue of Journal of Health Psychology foiled
- 19 Jul 2017 - Misconduct in an author’s nomination of reviewers for his manuscript
- 11 Jul 2017 - Asserting privilege: PACE investigators’ request that their manuscript not be peer reviewed or receive replies
- 8 Jul 2017 - Global expert on distant and faith healing chaired PACE Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee
- 26 Jun 2017 - Should authors declare a conflict of interest because they suffer from the illness they are writing about?
- 12 Jun 2017 - My peer review of a PACE investigators’ article that the authors refused to heed
- 7 Jun 2017 - NICE guidelines are discrepant with meta analyses and based on political considerations: An exchange
- 26 May 2017 - More signs the tide is turning: Vaughan Bell in The Lancet Psychiatry on routine data sharing
- 11 May 2017 - Patients writing about their health condition were abused by a peer reviewer and silenced by The BMJ
- 2 May 2017 - Breaking News: PLOS One issues Expression of Concern for PACE trial paper
- 13 Apr 2017 - Why I am formally requesting the data set from a Cochrane review
- 7 Apr 2017 - Must original investigators get authorship in re-analyses of their shared data?
- 25 Mar 2017 - Stealth homeopathy article makes it into PLOS One where it will probably remain
- 20 Mar 2017 - Could I critically evaluate the published results of the PACE trial without the raw data?
- 18 Mar 2017 - March 2017 -Don’t bother to apply: PACE investigators issue guidance for researchers requesting access to data
- 20 Dec 2016 - Simon Wessely: Why PACE investigators aren’t keen on handing over the PLOS One data to Coyne
- 15 Dec 2016 - Reply to an author complaining about my critique of a RCT of CBT for an unrecognized mental disorder
- 10 Oct 2016 - What should be done about the MEGA (ME/CFS Epidemiology and Genetics Alliance) project? Concerns and response
- 30 Sep 2016 - Simon Wessely’s muddled views of the good psychotherapy trial: I. Misunderstanding control groups
- 17 Sep 2016 - Outgoing Vice President of Dutch Academy of Science warns of sharing data with “your enemies”
- 11 Sep 2016 -Is the Science Media Centre briefing on cognitive behaviour therapy trustworthy?
- 10 Sep 2016 - What is next for Coyne of the Realm after Queen Mary University London releases PACE trial data?
- 18 Aug 2016 - Release the PACE trial data: My submission to the UK Tribunal
- 17 Aug 2016 -QMUL responds to UK Tribunal ordering release of PACE chronic fatigue syndrome trial data
- 16 Aug 2016 - TRIBUNAL ORDERS RELEASE OF PACE TRIAL DATA
- 4 Jun 2016 - Why patients should not enroll in a clinical trial of video gaming treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome
- 21 May 2016 -No, irritable bowel syndrome is not all in your head.
- 9 May 2016 - Half year passes without release of PLOS One PACE trial data
- 30 Apr 2016 - Experts weigh in on Suzanne O’Sullivan’s commentary on imaginary illness in The Lancet
- 23 Apr 2016 - Probing an untrustworthy Cochrane review of exercise for “chronic fatigue syndrome”
- 21 Apr 2016 - My response to an invitation to improve the Cochrane Collaboration by challenging its policies
- 20 Mar 2016 - Why the Cochrane Collaboration needs to clean up conflicts of interest
- 9 Mar 2016 - UK expert: AIDS data should not be shared until requesters shown to be HIV-
- 7 Mar 2016 - Update: PLOS One affirms my (and anyone else’s) right to PACE data published there
- 6 Mar 2016 - An open letter to the Cochrane Collaboration: Bill Silverman lies a-moldering in his grave
- 4 Mar 2016 - PLOS One allows authors of experimercial undeclared conflicts of interest, restrictions on access to data
- 1 Mar 2016 - UK government: Risk of reputational damage to investigators not an excuse for withholding data
- 26 Feb 2016 - The illusion you will be able bodied forever and the limits of empathy
- 20 Feb 2016 - As major medical journals balk, BMJ moves forward with routine data sharing.
- 16 Feb 2016 - Bad stats, non sequitur conclusions in Lancet chronic fatigue syndrome/suicide study
- 14 Feb 2016 - A call for the unconditional release of the PLOS One PACE data Part 1
- 31 Jan 2016 - Further insights into war against data sharing: Science Media Centre’s letter writing campaign to UK Parliament
- 5 Jan 2016 - Undisclosed conflicts of interest in a systematic review protocol of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms
- 2 Jan 2016 - Glimpses into the assault on data sharing
- 22 Dec 2015 - Recognizing when “protecting patient privacy” is mere excuse for not sharing data
- 18 Dec 2015 - King’s College London stalls some more, reiterating refusal to release the PACE trial data
- 15 Dec 2015 - PLOS One response to concerns about King’s College refusal to share PACE data.
- 13 Dec 2015 - Why I don’t know how PLOS will respond to authors’ refusal to release data
- 12 Dec 2015 - Formal request to PLOS One to issue an Expression of Concern for PACE cost-effectiveness study
- 4 Dec 2015 - Update on my formal request for release of the PACE trial data
- 2 Dec 2015 - What it takes for Queen Mary to declare a request for scientific data “vexatious”
- 22 Nov 2015 - A “Moral equivalent of war” and the PACE chronic fatigue trial
- 9 Nov 2015 - No Dissing! NHS Choices Behind the Headlines needs to repair relationship with its readers
PLOS One Blog[edit | edit source]
- 25 Nov 2015 - Was independent peer review of the PACE trial articles possible?
- 11 Nov 2015 - Why the scientific community needs the PACE trial data to be released
- 29 Oct 2015 - Uninterpretable: Fatal flaws in PACE Chronic Fatigue Syndrome follow-up study (This blog post was recognized as one the of the Your Top 15 in ’15: Most popular on PLOS BLOGS Network)
Online presence[edit | edit source]
Learn more[edit | edit source]
See also[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
- "Uninterpretable: Fatal flaws in PACE Chronic Fatigue Syndrome follow-up study"
- "Why the scientific community needs the PACE trial data to be released"
- "Edinburgh Skeptics in the Pub talk on PACE chronic fatigue trial"
- A Moral equivalent of war and the PACE chronic fatigue trial
- Was independent peer review of the PACE trial articles possible?