Flucamp - Unethical Conduct

[SurfDudew/Attitude]

So back in December, I signed up to take part in clinical trials with Flucamp, I went to their clinic in Manchester to give an initial blood sample, then a few weeks later, I got a text from my GP, saying they had been contacted by Flucamp, and asked if I gave consent for them to disclose my medical records to them, which I did, then a few more weeks later I got an email from Flucamp stating that I was not eligible for their current clinical trials due to my blood sample having antibodies against the Flu they were testing. I queried them for why they requested my medical records if my blood sample showed I was ineligible, and I made reference to their consent video which they ask you to watch before your appointment, where they say between 1:15 and 1:26 "If your blood results are eligible, we will request your medical history from your GP" External Link/Members Only

I left them a bad review on Google last month, and I was subsequently contacted by the Head of their legal department, saying my review was legally ungrounded, and insisting that I retract my statement about their unethical screening process. I stand by what I have said about them, and for anyone who is interested, you can read my review on Google under the name Beef Wellington, and then watch the video that I have linked in this topic to see if what I have said is not true.

[southern punter]

fascinating.  how does punting relate to this?

[SurfDudew/Attitude]

Well it's coz I saw an old post about Flucamp on here, as a means to making more money to go punting, but the post was really old, so thought it best to start a new topic about it

[mr.bluesky]

fascinating.  how does punting relate to this?

It has been posted in the " off topic chat " section so I don't see what the problem is 

[daviemac]

It has been posted in the " off topic chat " section so I don't see what the problem is 

It was posted on the main board then moved here by a forum helper.

[mr.bluesky]

It was posted on the main board then moved here by a forum helper.

  that explains it

[petermisc]

I queried them for why they requested my medical records if my blood sample showed I was ineligible, and I made reference to their consent video which they ask you to watch before your appointment, where they say between 1:15 and 1:26 "If your blood results are eligible, we will request your medical history from your GP

What was their response?

[SurfDudew/Attitude]

They took their video down (although it's on YouTube, see link), saying that they were updating it so the language was "more clearer". And I asked them if they were willing to pay me compensation, but they said they don't give compensation for feedback. Even though, in my opinion, they should for acting unethically with their screening process until I called them out on their video being misleading. Which is also technically false advertising.

[petermisc]

They took their video down (although it's on YouTube, see link), saying that they were updating it so the language was "more clearer". And I asked them if they were willing to pay me compensation, but they said they don't give compensation for feedback. Even though, in my opinion, they should for acting unethically with their screening process until I called them out on their video being misleading. Which is also technically false advertising.

Now that the full picture is beginning to emerge, this is all beginning to sound a bit iffy.

In your original message, you significantly omitted to mention that you had asked them for "External Link/Members Only of compensation".  You would have been justified in asking for restitution (things being restored to the state they were in before), but I can't see what you have lost that you need to be compensated for.  Unless you can quantify your monetary loss, a demand for payment can look like a demand for money.  And you seem to have specifically asked for External Link/Members Only. 

And they replied that they don't pay for feedback.  That is a very odd thing to say - why would they think that their paying you would affect your feedback?  What exactly did you say to them when demanding this "compensation"?

I am beginning to see why they might be getting their lawyers involved, if they think you have been trying to extort money from them.

[Doc Holliday]

And I asked them if they were willing to pay me compensation, but they said they don't give compensation for feedback.

What you actually wrote in your public google review was this "They're gonna have to pay a lot of compo for how unethical they have acted"

That's not really a request more a threat. I agree with Peter that it is no surprise they involved lawyers and you also failed to mention compensation in your original post.

What are your grounds for compensation? How have you been adversely affected?

[contentguy]

They took their video down (although it's on YouTube, see link), saying that they were updating it so the language was "more clearer". And I asked them if they were willing to pay me compensation, but they said they don't give compensation for feedback. Even though, in my opinion, they should for acting unethically with their screening process until I called them out on their video being misleading. Which is also technically false advertising.

You’ve been warned by their lawyers and continue to post about them in public forums.
Not sure what you’re hoping to achieve 

False advertising? Take it to a regulator.

Have you suffered a loss?  Sue them!

Or keep posting, criticising them, and see what happens.  It seems you’ve reposted the statement above that their lawyers have asked you to retract.  You’ve helpfully let them know that it’s you.

 

[SurfDudew/Attitude]

Well in my opinion, I do not believe I have said anything that is actionable. I have proof from the emails that was sent to me and their video, that they have acted unethically. Also what would be the point of referring it to a regulator now that they already took the video down from their website?

[petermisc]

I don't think anyone is questioning that they were wrong to ask for your medical details.  However, you have failed to explain how that qualifies you for a large payment.  Or how they came to be under the impression that your review and that payment were linked.

As a matter of interest, if they had said they were going to check your medical records first, before going to the expense of doing the blood tests, would you have refused to take part?

[Doc Holliday]

Well in my opinion, I do not believe I have said anything that is actionable. I have proof from the emails that was sent to me and their video, that they have acted unethically. Also what would be the point of referring it to a regulator now that they already took the video down from their website?

It's a very minor 'technical' breach of ethics, easily explained by a clerical 'timing' error. No action would be taken as ultimately you gave your permission for them to access your medical records. Have you checked with your GP if they have actually actioned your consent.?

You haven't answered on what grounds you would be entitled to compensation?

[tintin100]

I think he has a case, by asking for his medical records, they have indicated he is the trail. Can’t see them taking him to court , it would only make the matter worse for both sides.

[Doc Holliday]

I think he has a case, by asking for his medical records, they have indicated he is the trail.

No they haven't. You are in the trial when they confirm you are in the trial. He was nowhere need that stage, in fact he was turned down at the first hurdle when the blood results came through

Edit nothing is going to court here

[tintin100]

No they haven't. You are in the trial when they confirm you are in the trial. He was nowhere need that stage, in fact he was turned down at the first hurdle when the blood results came through

Edit nothing is going to court here

I read what he had said on his post, it implied that they would only ask for his medical records if he was eligible for the trail, so by asking for his medical records, they gave him false hope. I am saying they wouldn't take him to court, it's just a threat. I would be seeking compensation if I was in his shoes.

[SurfDudew/Attitude]

Evening gents, apologies for the late reply (I was watching Corrie). I'll give a bit more context in relation to my experience with Flucamp; When I initially queried them for the way they asked for my medical records, they did not respond to me until I forwarded my email onto their Data Protection Officer, which was when I got a reply from them, and I then brought up the information that was given in their consent video. I told them I was not happy with how they obtained my medical history, and asked them to erase all my data, they replied back thanking me for bringing the video to their attention and told me that they would erase all my data in 28 days from the date of my request, and I then replied back asking if they were willing to provide some restitution to me for acknowledging that their video was misleading. They did not respond to me, so I subsequently followed up with some more emails to them, one of the last emails I recall sending to them was how they still had the video in question up on their website, and they eventually took it down. Since they did not reply back to me I thought it best to publish a review on Google. I must stress, I have not at any point said what they did was illegal, I simply said what they did was unethical. And it is not only me who they have done this to, but likely many more people, so if anything, they have a moral obligation to pay compensation to a lot more people than just myself. As medical data is very sensitive material to be handling, and I believe you should be as transparent as possible with people in how you conduct clinical trials, or people will lose faith in science. I am someone who is a big believer in science, so I know that there is more emphasis on what is ethical rather than what is legal. Yes, I gave consent for my medical records to be released to them, which they were. I want to reiterate, I am addressing something that was unethical, not illegal. And yes, if they had said they were going to review my medical records before doing blood test with them, I may have still gone along with them. However, this was not stated by them.

[jackdaw]

Evening gents, apologies for the late reply (I was watching Corrie). I'll give a bit more context in relation to my experience with Flucamp; When I initially queried them for the way they asked for my medical records, they did not respond to me until I forwarded my email onto their Data Protection Officer, which was when I got a reply from them, and I then brought up the information that was given in their consent video. I told them I was not happy with how they obtained my medical history, and asked them to erase all my data, they replied back thanking me for bringing the video to their attention and told me that they would erase all my data in 28 days from the date of my request, and I then replied back asking if they were willing to provide some restitution to me for acknowledging that their video was misleading. They did not respond to me, so I subsequently followed up with some more emails to them, one of the last emails I recall sending to them was how they still had the video in question up on their website, and they eventually took it down. Since they did not reply back to me I thought it best to publish a review on Google. I must stress, I have not at any point said what they did was illegal, I simply said what they did was unethical. And it is not only me who they have done this to, but likely many more people, so if anything, they have a moral obligation to pay compensation to a lot more people than just myself. As medical data is very sensitive material to be handling, and I believe you should be as transparent as possible with people in how you conduct clinical trials, or people will lose faith in science. I am someone who is a big believer in science, so I know that there is more emphasis on what is ethical rather than what is legal. Yes, I gave consent for my medical records to be released to them, which they were. I want to reiterate, I am addressing something that was unethical, not illegal. And yes, if they had said they were going to review my medical records before doing blood test with them, I may have still gone along with them. However, this was not stated by them.

What level of compo would you regard as a reasonable settlement?

[SurfDudew/Attitude]

I'd probably settle for somewhere in the region of between 100 to 500 quid max

[petermisc]

I'd probably settle for somewhere in the region of between 100 to 500 quid max

I think you will probably settle for somewhere in the region of zilch.

Once again I have to ask, how have you lost out financially that would warrant such compensation?  Particularly as you would probably still have gone ahead releasing your records anyway.

TBH, your continued swerving of this question, and your obvious glee in your feedback about the amount of compensation you thought you might be getting, means you are coming across as a bit of a chancer, jumping on the compo bandwagon, trying to get money for nothing.  And particularly despicable to be trying to screw money out of medical research.  It looks to me like they may not be the only ones to have acted unethically. 

Again, you have consistently swerved the question of why they felt the need to refuse to pay for your feedback.  So while they did nothing illegal, it looks to me increasingly likely you may have done. 

[magpie252]

I'm not going to discuss how I got this information, suffice to say that I have a contact that works as a Research Compliance Officer for a major Pharma Co. (not this one)

Their take:
* The video is irrelevant, it talks in very general terms about the companies process. The only thing you can rely on is the actual consent form for the specific trial you applied for.
I assume that you fully read & understood it's contents before signing?
Each trial will have it's own specific consent form, detailing the complete process. If they haven't followed the process detailed here, you may have grounds for a complaint.

* You have the right to demand that your records are deleted. It would appear that you have requested this & they have agreed - So no basis for a claim.

* At worst, you would appear to be subject to an administrative  / timing error, it's hard to see what loss you have suffered to justify compensation

* All medical research in the UK is governed by the MHRA, you should make any complaint to them.
External Link/Members Only

[jackdaw]

I'd probably settle for somewhere in the region of between 100 to 500 quid max

Like the other guys I’m quite pessimistic that you’ll be able to get that sort of amount. Assuming Flucamp just “deadbat it” (that is, just tell you they don’t think any compo is due) I don’t see what lever you can pull to force them to change their mind.

Looking at what went wrong I can see why you were irritated. I think my own approach in similar situation would have been to contact them, tell them I thought they had made a slight error…and been pleased if they agreed to change things. And certainly surprised and delighted if they had offered any compo at all…on basis (as others have said) really no loss, so even a tenner is a happy bonus.

Maybe I’m too easy going…but my own gut feeling is I’d just be stressing myself for no good reason if I kept pushing on issue.

[David1970]

So back in December, I signed up to take part in clinical trials with Flucamp, I went to their clinic in Manchester to give an initial blood sample, then a few weeks later, I got a text from my GP, saying they had been contacted by Flucamp, and asked if I gave consent for them to disclose my medical records to them, which I did, then a few more weeks later I got an email from Flucamp stating that I was not eligible for their current clinical trials due to my blood sample having antibodies against the Flu they were testing. I queried them for why they requested my medical records if my blood sample showed I was ineligible, and I made reference to their consent video which they ask you to watch before your appointment, where they say between 1:15 and 1:26 "If your blood results are eligible, we will request your medical history from your GP" External Link/Members Only

I left them a bad review on Google last month, and I was subsequently contacted by the Head of their legal department, saying my review was legally ungrounded, and insisting that I retract my statement about their unethical screening process. I stand by what I have said about them, and for anyone who is interested, you can read my review on Google under the name Beef Wellington, and then watch the video that I have linked in this topic to see if what I have said is not true.

Can I ask, why did you volunteer for the trials?

[Doc Holliday]

Can I ask, why did you volunteer for the trials?

Well it's coz I saw an old post about Flucamp on here, as a means to making more money to go punting, but the post was really old, so thought it best to start a new topic about it

[sensualencounter]

OP, I’m assuming your name means “with attitude” as that would tie in with all what you’ve written. Glancing back through your posts / reviews, it seems that you have a penchant for asking for compensation. I don’t know what the male equivalent to a Karen is but I’d suggest “Surf Dude with Attitude” would work really well, if a little bit too long. Maybe SDWA for short?

Give your head a wobble. You’ve asked for advice (well, you’ve really just ranted and backtracked when you didn’t get the response you desired), so I’d suggest you take it. Let it go before you give yourself a heart attack. Surely that would be better than £100-500?

And maybe just pay for a punt out of your own morally earned income and not expect freebies or compensation?

[Blackpool Rock]

OP, I’m assuming your name means “with attitude” as that would tie in with all what you’ve written. Glancing back through your posts / reviews, it seems that you have a penchant for asking for compensation. I don’t know what the male equivalent to a Karen is but I’d suggest “Surf Dude with Attitude” would work really well, if a little bit too long. Maybe SDWA for short?

Give your head a wobble. You’ve asked for advice (well, you’ve really just ranted and backtracked when you didn’t get the response you desired), so I’d suggest you take it. Let it go before you give yourself a heart attack. Surely that would be better than £100-500?

And maybe just pay for a punt out of your own morally earned income and not expect freebies or compensation?

Yeah I picked up the "Attitude" in his name too

Storm in a teacup really, OK so theoretically the OP should perhaps be compensated for the time spent having to go and give his blood sample but then again  i've been to job interviews and not been compensated for travel or my day off work etc

I'm guessing it's routine to request the medical records before the blood test results have come back, a bit annoying yes but i've got bigger things to get in a spin about like keeping my stress levels down

Imagine his level of outrage if he'd actually taken part and received a placebo   

[lewisjones23]

probably nothing to do with the blood test, must have realised the OP is a right tosser and couldnt be arsed with him

[petermisc]

Imagine his level of outrage if he'd actually taken part and received a placebo   

Doubt whether he would be bothered, as long as he got paid.  I think that is the real reason for his outrage, being rejected and so not getting paid, so try and pull a fast one and claim some compo instead.

Can I claim compo off him for his unethical behaviour on here, and my time wasted reading his bullshit?  At my standard rate, I think I am due at least a grand off him.