Professor James Coyne is an American psychologist and Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. He was the 2015 Carnegie Centenary Visiting Professor at University of Stirling, Scotland. He has also been a Professor of Health Psychology, University Medical Center, 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 425 papers and chapters, and was recently designated one of the 200 most eminent psychologists of the second half of the 20th century.
Talks and interviews[edit | edit source]
- Feb 2016 - Professor James Coyne Presentation on PACE Trial - Belfast
- Oct 13, 2017 - #Unrest, Presentation in Amsterdam as part of the Unrest film promotion on British and Dutch research including the PACE trial
- Nov 18, 2018 - Debating Dutch experts in absentia on treating chronic fatigue syndrome. Presentation at showing of #Unrest at Red Carpet Lounge, Leiden.
Writings on ME/CFS and PACE trial[edit | edit source]
Mind the Brain blog[edit | edit source]
- Sep 17, 2017 - Embargo broken: Bristol University Professor to discuss trial of quack chronic fatigue syndrome treatment
- Nov 15, 2017 - Stop using the Adverse Childhood Experiences Checklist to make claims about trauma causing physical and mental health problems
- Dec 28, 2017 - Better days: When PLOS Blogs honored my post about fatal flaws in the PACE chronic fatigue syndrome follow-up study (2015)
- Jan 9, 2018 - Accompanied suicide: A Swedish woman with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome chooses death over further suffering
- Jan 12, 2018 - When psychotherapy trials have multiple flaws…
- Oct 19, 2018 - The lost last year of one of the key two people in getting the Cochrane review of exercise withdrawn
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 . )
- Aug 1, 2017 - Part 2: What to look for in a Special Issue of Journal of Health Psychology concerning the PACE trial
- Jul 13, 2017 - What to look for in the Special Issue of Journal of Health Psychology concerning the PACE trial
- Jul 30, 2017 -Last ditch attempt to block publication of special issue of Journal of Health Psychology foiled
- Jul 19, 2017 - Misconduct in an author’s nomination of reviewers for his manuscript
- Jul 11, 2017 - Asserting privilege: PACE investigators’ request that their manuscript not be peer reviewed or receive replies
- Jul 8, 2017 - Global expert on distant and faith healing chaired PACE Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee
- Jun 26, 2017 - Should authors declare a conflict of interest because they suffer from the illness they are writing about?
- Jun 12, 2017 - My peer review of a PACE investigators’ article that the authors refused to heed
- Jun 7, 2017 - NICE guidelines are discrepant with meta analyses and based on political considerations: An exchange
- May 26, 2017 - More signs the tide is turning: Vaughan Bell in The Lancet Psychiatry on routine data sharing
- May 11, 2017 - Patients writing about their health condition were abused by a peer reviewer and silenced by The BMJ
- May 2, 2017 - Breaking News: PLOS One issues Expression of Concern for PACE trial paper
- Apr 13, 2017 - Why I am formally requesting the data set from a Cochrane review
- Apr 7, 2017 - Must original investigators get authorship in re-analyses of their shared data?
- Mar 25, 2017 - Stealth homeopathy article makes it into PLOS One where it will probably remain
- Mar 20, 2017 - Could I critically evaluate the published results of the PACE trial without the raw data?
- Mar 18, 2017 - March 2017 -Don’t bother to apply: PACE investigators issue guidance for researchers requesting access to data
- Dec 20, 2016 - Simon Wessely: Why PACE investigators aren’t keen on handing over the PLOS One data to Coyne
- Dec 15, 2016 - Reply to an author complaining about my critique of a RCT of CBT for an unrecognized mental disorder
- Oct 10, 2016 - What should be done about the MEGA (ME/CFS Epidemiology and Genetics Alliance) project? Concerns and response
- Sep 30, 2016 - Simon Wessely’s muddled views of the good psychotherapy trial: I. Misunderstanding control groups
- Sep 17, 2016 - Outgoing Vice President of Dutch Academy of Science warns of sharing data with “your enemies”
- Sep 11, 2016 -Is the Science Media Centre briefing on cognitive behaviour therapy trustworthy?
- Sep 10, 2016 - What is next for Coyne of the Realm after Queen Mary University London releases PACE trial data?
- Aug 18, 2016 - Release the PACE trial data: My submission to the UK Tribunal
- Aug 17, 2016 -QMUL responds to UK Tribunal ordering release of PACE chronic fatigue syndrome trial data
- Aug 16, 2016 - TRIBUNAL ORDERS RELEASE OF PACE TRIAL DATA
- Jun 4, 2016 - Why patients should not enroll in a clinical trial of video gaming treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome
- May 21, 2016 -No, irritable bowel syndrome is not all in your head.
- May 9, 2016 - Half year passes without release of PLOS One PACE trial data
- Apr 30, 2016 - Experts weigh in on Suzanne O’Sullivan’s commentary on imaginary illness in The Lancet
- Apr 23, 2016 - Probing an untrustworthy Cochrane review of exercise for “chronic fatigue syndrome”
- Apr 21, 2016 - My response to an invitation to improve the Cochrane Collaboration by challenging its policies
- Mar 20, 2016 - Why the Cochrane Collaboration needs to clean up conflicts of interest
- Mar 9, 2016 - UK expert: AIDS data should not be shared until requesters shown to be HIV-
- Mar 7, 2016 - Update: PLOS One affirms my (and anyone else’s) right to PACE data published there
- Mar 6, 2016 - An open letter to the Cochrane Collaboration: Bill Silverman lies a-moldering in his grave
- Mar 4, 2016 - PLOS One allows authors of experimercial undeclared conflicts of interest, restrictions on access to data
- Mar 1, 2016 - UK government: Risk of reputational damage to investigators not an excuse for withholding data
- Feb, 26 2016 - The illusion you will be able bodied forever and the limits of empathy
- Feb 20, 2016 - As major medical journals balk, BMJ moves forward with routine data sharing.
- Feb 16, 2016 - Bad stats, non sequitur conclusions in Lancet chronic fatigue syndrome/suicide study
- Feb 14, 2016 - A call for the unconditional release of the PLOS One PACE data Part 1
- Jan 31, 2016 - Further insights into war against data sharing: Science Media Centre’s letter writing campaign to UK Parliament
- Jan 5, 2016 - Undisclosed conflicts of interest in a systematic review protocol of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms
- Jan 2, 2016 - Glimpses into the assault on data sharing
- Dec22, 2015 - Recognizing when “protecting patient privacy” is mere excuse for not sharing data
- Dec 18, 2015 - King’s College London stalls some more, reiterating refusal to release the PACE trial data
- Dec 15, 2015 - PLOS One response to concerns about King’s College refusal to share PACE data.
- Dec 13, 2015 - Why I don’t know how PLOS will respond to authors’ refusal to release data
- Dec 12, 2015 - Formal request to PLOS One to issue an Expression of Concern for PACE cost-effectiveness study
- Dec 4, 2015 - Update on my formal request for release of the PACE trial data
- Dec 2, 2015 - What it takes for Queen Mary to declare a request for scientific data “vexatious”
- Nov 22, 2015 - A “Moral equivalent of war” and the PACE chronic fatigue trial
- Nov 9, 2015 - No Dissing! NHS Choices Behind the Headlines needs to repair relationship with its readers
PLOS One Blog[edit | edit source]
- Nov 25, 2015 - Was independent peer review of the PACE trial articles possible?
- Nov 11, 2015 - Why the scientific community needs the PACE trial data to be released
- Oct 29, 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]
See also[edit | edit source]
Learn more[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?