This story was covered in the Sunday Times in late October and I published a full account on Spectator Health. The Evening Standard reiterated some of this in an article on November 3rd headlined 'Public Health England "tweaked" alcohol research to impose stricter guidelines, report reveals'.
I would link to the article but it was taken down within hours. I don't know if it was ever published in the newspaper. All I have are these screenshots that I took at the time.
Why was this article taken offline? I suspected that Public Health England might have had something to do with it so I sent a Freedom of Information request asking to see all correspondence between them and the Evening Standard at the time of the incident.
Sure enough, I got this e-mail chain starting on 2 November while the journalist was preparing the article...
From: PHE
Sent: 02 November 2017 13:48
To: standard
Subject: PHE response on alcohol guidelines story in Sun Times
XXXX
As promised - our full statement in response to Sun Times:
PHE spokesperson:
“The UK Chief Medical Officers’ alcohol guidelines were based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and advice from the Guidelines Development Group of independent experts.
“As part of the secretariat to the group, we commissioned the analysis, as requested by the Guidelines Development Group, from Sheffield University. We categorically refute the claim that PHE in any way attempted to influence or pressure Sheffield University on their research work to inform the alcohol guidelines.”
I will forward our final response to the Spectator as soon as possible
XXXX
The Spectator article was mine. PHE did indeed respond to it and I replied to their points in this article.
PHE then sent the Standard the response that Sheffield had sent the Sunday Times a few days earlier...
From: PHE
Sent: 02 November 2017 14:10
To: Stanfard
Subject: PHE response
XXXX
Below is part of our response to the Spectator Re: Chris Snowden’s article, which gives a more detailed account from Sheffield Uni about the evidence requested from the expert group. The links provide the minutes of the expert groups (GDG) meetings.
Any queries on the expert group’s decision on the evidence are not for PHE to answer – as we were just part of the secretariat to the group along with DH.
Sheffield Uni press office can also provide you with their full response to the Sun Times.
As part of the secretariat to the group, we commissioned the analysis, as requested by the GDG, from Sheffield University. Any emails from PHE to Sheffield commissioning additional modelling and evidence were based on the GDG’s decisions and at their request, as is clearly shown by the publicly available minutes of their meetings.
This has been confirmed by Sheffield University’s Alcohol Research Group, which has said:
“Minutes from the subsequent GDG meeting on 21 January 2015 state that, after hearing Sheffield's presentation of their work, the GDG concluded: ‘A holistic, expert judgement on guideline levels would be needed, taking account of uncertainties and issues not fully modelled’. This demonstrates that the group recognised there was considerable scientific uncertainty present and that no single piece of evidence or modelling decision used in isolation would determine the final guideline.
“As noted in the Royal Statistical Society's consultation response: "This is a contested area of science with considerable uncertainties" (paragraph 1.1). The change to the base case analyses related to a point of scientific uncertainty. The Sheffield Alcohol Research Group were happy with the decision taken whereby the base case analysis was revised but the original modelling assumptions were retained as one of a series of sensitivity analyses.
“Those analyses explored major areas of uncertainty within the underlying evidence and their implications for the Guideline Development Group's work. The group considered those sensitivity analyses in detail and took them into account in their decision-making.”
Regards
XXXX
From: Standard
Sent: 02 November 2017 14:11
To: PHE
Subject: RE: PHE response
XXXX
Thanks so much for getting back to me.
All the best,
XXXX
From: PHE
Date: 2 November 2017 at 14:21:39 GMT To: standard
Subject: RE: PHE response
XXXX
Grateful if you could let me know if you do decide to write something
regards
XXXX
It must be said that neither PHE's response nor that of Sheffield's is entirely consistent with the e-mails sent at the time. PHE's defence throughout this whole affair has been to pass the buck to the guidelines committee. I made it clear from the start that the idea of changing the methodology came from the guidelines committee. However, it is a bit much for PHE to deny that they 'in any way attempted to influence or pressure Sheffield University'. Whether acting on behalf of the committee or not, PHE exerted strong pressure on the Sheffield team, and on page 28 of Sheffield's published report it clearly states:
‘At the request of the commissioners (Public Health England), this threshold effect removed for the base case analysis…’
As for the Sheffield team claiming that they 'were happy with the decision taken whereby the base case analysis was revised but the original modelling assumptions were retained as one of a series of sensitivity analyses', the e-mails suggest that they were anything but happy. When asked by PHE to change the methodology, they said:
Our view remains that it does not seem right to assign people drinking at very low levels a risk of acquiring alcoholic liver disease and similar conditions. Unless there are strong opposing views, we think it better to keep the threshold in the base case.
The Standard published the story on November 3rd and received this e-mail from PHE in response:
From: PHE
Sent: 03 November 2017 16:38
To: Standard
Cc: PHE
Subject: Complaint re: "Public Health England 'tweaked' alcohol research to impose stricter guidelines, report reveals"
Dear XXXX,
Not for publication
I am writing to complain about multiple inaccuracies and errors in Alexandra Richards’ article “Public Health England 'tweaked' alcohol research to impose stricter guidelines, report reveals” and the article’s serious and unsubstantiated claim that PHE made changes to research in order to impose different guidelines.
As I explained in my phone call earlier, this is a serious allegation that assigns intent to PHE as well as claiming that PHE altered evidence. In fact, as our on the record statement made very clear, PHE was not a decision making body and so it is doubly wrong to suggest that PHE altered evidence with an intended outcome.
PHE was acting as secretariat to the independent group of academics, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) which advised the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) on the evidence. It was this group of academics which decided to request additional analysis, a point which is made very clear in the minutes of their meetings which were published by the Department of Health as part of the consultation process some time ago (this evidence, and a link to where it can be found, is detailed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/490560/List__of_ documents_acc.pdf). I have attached the minutes of the relevant meeting.
I request that the article is taken down until corrected so that others do not repeat its many errors.
They are:
Public Health England 'tweaked' alcohol research to impose stricter guidelines, report reveals
Wrong. A group of independent academics, the Guidelines Development Group (GDG), were responsible for reviewing the evidence and submitting this to the CMO. They resolved at their meeting of 21 January 2015 to request additional modelling. It should also be noted that the final report included all analyses
The government asked a leading alcohol research centre to tweak data in order to impose stricter regulations on drinking
Wrong. As above, the decision to request additional research was made by the independent GDG. Secondly, this sentence alleges, without substantiation, that PHE’s intention was to impose stricter regulations. Finally, the CMO Guidelines are not regulations – as made clear on the government’s website: “These guidelines, produced by the 4 UK chief medical officers, provide the most up to date scientific information to help people make informed decisions about their own drinking.”
Public Health England called on scientists at the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group (SARG) to write into a report
It is wrong to say PHE ‘called on’, this implies lobbying or advocacy. As the published minutes of the GDG and our statement make clear, PHE passed on the GDG’s request in our role as part of the secretariat.
Christopher Snowden, who requested the FOI, discovered that there had actually been an earlier draft of the report
This ‘earlier draft’ is publicly available on the Department of Health’s website in the consultation pack (see link above).
In emails seen as part of the FOI request, PHE wrote to the SARG suggesting that the group “estimate risk urges without threshold effects for wholly alcohol-attributable chronic conditions" in the model.
It is wrong to say this was PHE’s suggestion. As the published minutes of the GDG and our statement make clear, PHE passed on the GDG’s request in our role as part of the secretariat.
When the Evening Standard contacted the PHE they said that they had been acting at the request of the Department of Health and that any requests to change the report came from them.
Not correct. PHE made clear (see attached emails) that decisions on the evidence were made by the independent experts of the GDG. They are independent of the Department of Health.
PHE added: “Any emails from PHE to Sheffield commissioning additional modelling and evidence were based on the GDG’s decisions and at their request, as is clearly shown by the publicly available minutes of their meetings”
Our full statement makes clear the GDG’s role: “The UK Chief Medical Officers’ alcohol guidelines were based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and advice from the Guidelines Development Group of independent experts. As part of the secretariat to the group, we commissioned the analysis, as requested by the Guidelines Development Group, from Sheffield University. We categorically refute the claim that PHE in any way attempted to influence or pressure Sheffield University on their research work to inform the alcohol guidelines.”
He said that after seeing the initial evidence, the Department of Health decided that the evidence was not “robust enough”
See above – it was not the Department of Health but the GDG which requested additional evidence.
They also said that they could not answer questions regarding the GDG’s decision on the evidence.
PHE actually said in a background email (attached), “Any queries on the expert group’s decision on the evidence are not for PHE to answer – as we were just part of the secretariat to the group along with DH.”
I do not speak for Sheffield University, but I would point out that others have run a fuller version of their statement, including a line which was not included in the Standard Online’s piece - “The Sheffield Alcohol Research Group were happy with the decision taken whereby the base case analysis was revised but the original modelling assumptions were retained as one of a series of sensitivity analyses” (see: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/31/booze_evidence_was_tailored_to_fit/?mt=1509459658 113).
Please confirm receipt and that this article will be corrected.
Yours,
XXXX
The article was not just 'taken down until corrected', as PHE requested. It was taken down for good. Without having the full article in front of me, it is difficult to say how accurate it was. Most newspaper articles are inaccurate to some extent, but I don't recall thinking that it was any worse than average.
Looking at PHE's list of complaints, they are right to say that the guidelines are not 'regulations' and they are right to make a distinction between the guidelines group and the Department of Health. These are sloppy mistakes that could have easily been corrected.
Other than that, the article is basically sound. It is simply a fact that it was PHE who commissioned the Sheffield report and it was they who asked them to make the changes. Whatever word you want to use - 'suggested', 'asked', 'called on' - PHE wrote the e-mails to Sheffield requesting the changes. They can argue that they were just middle men acting on behalf of the guidelines group (although Sheffield researchers were on that group and they seemed surprised that PHE was asking for the whole base case to be changed), but they were the ones who told Sheffield to change the methodology.
In any case, the Standard article included quotes from PHE explaining their position so that readers could make up their own minds. That is fair journalism and the Standard was spineless to take the article down.
It is telling that neither PHE nor Sheffield has mounted a defence of the methodological change itself. Sheffield points the finger at PHE and PHE points the finger at the guidelines group. The data were 'tweaked'. PHE do not deny that. The change made to the base case had no scientific justification and no scientist has tried to justify it.
PHE says that '[a]ny queries on the expert group’s decision on the evidence are not for PHE to answer'. So who is going to answer them? Anybody?
No comments:
Post a Comment