An incorrect correction in the Daily Mail

This is still bollocks because the paper wasn’t about “symptoms” of SCZ, it was  about neurobiological effects (electrical oscillations) which are not symptoms of anything, let alone schizophrenia all the symptoms of which are behaviours, not biological changes; and even the authors of the paper interpreted their results mainly in terms of the cognitive effects of cannabinoid receptor agonism rather than the “psychotic” effects…

Now that the complaint is resolved, I am entitled to publish the correspondence.  The CLEAR website is down at the moment due to a DDOS attack but this was the final resolution with the PCC:

—– Original Message —–
From: Peter
Reynolds
To: Chris Paget
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Press Complaints Commission: Our reference –
114978

Chris,

It is a woefully inadequate correction for what was
scurrilous, dishonest and corrupt journalism. The fact is that falsification of
scientific research is normal practice for the Daily Mail. However, it quite
clearly shows that the entire basis of the article was false so I accept it as
resolution of my complaint.

Please can you send me a PDF of the correction when
it is published?

Kind regards,

Peter
Reynolds

—– Original Message —–
From: Chris
Paget
To: peter@peter-reynolds.co.uk
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:33 PM
Subject: Press Complaints Commission: Our
reference – 114978

Dear Mr Reynolds,

I write further to my previous email of the 8
March.

As you are aware the Commission has been actively considering
this matter. It considered that the newspaper – in light of its online
clarification – ought to clarify the position in print as well. As such, the
newspaper has offered the following wording to be published in its corrections
and clarifications column on page 2:

A report on research by the University of Bristol on 26
October was headlined ‘One cannabis joint ‘can bring on schizophrenia’.’ We are
happy to clarify that, as the article explained, the research on rats found that
the active ingredient in cannabis could induce symptoms similar to
schizophrenia, rather than schizophrenia itself.

I note from your email of 20 January that you considered a
clarification in print was called for, one that made clear that the study had
been conducted on rats. In light of the above, I would be grateful for your
comments on this proposed wording as a further means by which this matter can be
resolved.

As you will agree, this matter has been on-going for some
time now, and while I acknowledge your position, I believe that the offered
wording represents a good offer by which the original article and the basis of
the study by Bristol University are clarified.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course and within
the next 7 days.

Kind regards,

Chris
Paget
Complaints
Officer

I have also had a reply from the PCC regarding this article (UKCIA complaint)  - the final paragraph should keep you in stitches for weeks.

“The complainant had raised concerns regarding the article’s reference that rats had been given cannabis “in a similar dose to a person smoking a joint”. The Commission had contacted the author of the study who had made clear that he did not wish to formally pursue the matter. Without the involvement of the researchers behind the study, the Commission was not in a sufficiently informed position to rule on the accuracy, or otherwise, of the dosage claim. In this instance, the Commission declined to make a ruling under the terms of the Code”. 

So in other words they don’t understand the science, so won’t investigate it. The PCC would seem to be nothing short of corrupt.

Derek

Commission’s decision in the case ofWilliams v Daily Mail The complainant considered that an article, which reported a recent study by the University of Bristol into the effect of CP55940 on the brains of rats, was a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code. In addition, the newspaper’s published clarification of 4 April in relation to the article was not sufficient to address his concerns: the content of the statement was in itself inaccurate. The terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) state that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. The complainant considered that that the article had inaccurately reported the study, suggesting that it demonstrated a causal link between cannabis use and the development of serious mental illness, when this had not been the study’s aim or outcome. The study had looked at the effect that CP55940 had on the brains of rats. CP55940, a synthetic cannabinoid analogue of THC, mimicked the effects of naturally occurring THC, which was one of the psychoactive compounds found in cannabis. The study had found that the effect of CP55940 on rats was similar to the cognitive dysfunction seen in schizophrenia patients. The complainant said it was fundamentally misleading to present a study that looked at the effect of a synthetic cannabinoid on the brains of rats as evidence that cannabis could lead to schizophrenia. The Commission agreed that the article’s reference to researchers “look[ing] in detail at the changes in the brains of cannabis users” had the potential to be misleading. However, it had to have regard for the fact that the article had made clear – including in a headline reference – that the study had been conducted on rats. In addition, the article had included comments from Dr Matt Jones, the lead author of the study, who expressly drew conclusions from the research about the effects of cannabis on the brain of human users. The researchers who conducted the study considered that it had implications for humans; the Commission considered that the newspaper had been entitled to report their conclusions in this regard to its readers. The main concern for the Commission was that the headline to the piece had gone further and claimed that cannabis can cause schizophrenia. The Commission has previously ruled that headlines should be considered within the context of the article as a whole, as due to space restraints, they can only represent a limited summary of a potentially complex set of facts. However, in this instance, it did not consider that the body to the piece sufficiently clarified or substantiated the headline. The study had not found a causal link between smoking cannabis and the development of schizophrenia. Accordingly, the Commission established a breach of Clause 1 (i) of the Code. The Commission considered that the newspaper’s clarification and amendment to its online article was appropriate. It was satisfied that this course of action was sufficient to remedy the original breach. The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s position regarding the accuracy of the statement. However, it did not consider that the reference to “the active ingredient in cannabis” could be said to raise a further breach of Clause 1. The study had used CP55940, which the complainant accepted was an artificial compound of THC, an active ingredient in cannabis. Given the artificial compound was used in the study to mimic the effects of THC, the reference to it as the active ingredient in cannabis was not significantly misleading. The Commission accepted that it would have been preferable to refer to the compound as “one of” the active ingredients in cannabis. However, it did not consider that readers would be significantly misled in this regard. The complainant had raised concerns regarding the article’s reference that rats had been given cannabis “in a similar dose to a person smoking a joint”. The Commission had contacted the author of the study who had made clear that he did not wish to formally pursue the matter. Without the involvement of the researchers behind the study, the Commission was not in a sufficiently informed position to rule on the accuracy, or otherwise, of the dosage claim. In this instance, the Commission declined to make a ruling under the terms of the Code. Reference No. 114998  Chris PagetComplaints Officer Press Complaints CommissionHalton House20/23 HolbornLondon EC1N 2JD Tel: 020 7831 0022Website: www.pcc.org.uk