Tymes Trust's FOI to Bristol Uni resulted in proof that Esther Crawley is lying about harassment

Kathryn 1

@Copyright 2017 Kathryn 1. All rights reserved
http://www.tymestrust.org/pdfs/noharassmentbristol.pdf

The Young ME Sufferers Trust No Reported Harassment at Bristol University (Information Obtained Under FOI)

By the 30th August, one day after the 10 working day deadline, no response had been received from Bristol University and a further email was sent to the ICO advising them of this fact. At 5.21pm that same day, Bristol University then responded to the FOI request of 12th June, stating: We have received no official reports of harassment of University staff by a third party between September 2010 and June 2015. Conclusion The 2016 tribunal appeal Judgement ordering QMUL to release the PACE trial data, which had found, in the Judge’s words, no threats have been made either to researchers or participants, taken together with this new information that Bristol University have no reports of harassment of University staff by a third party between September 2010 and January 2017 raises questions about such accusations and about those who make them
By the 30th August, one day after the 10 working day deadline, no response had been received from Bristol University and a further email was sent to the ICO advising them of this fact. At 5.21pm that same day, Bristol University then responded to the FOI request of 12th June, stating: We have received no official reports of harassment of University staff by a third party between September 2010 and June 2015. Conclusion The 2016 tribunal appeal Judgement ordering QMUL to release the PACE trial data, which had found, in the Judge’s words, no threats have been made either to researchers or participants, taken together with this new information that Bristol University have no reports of harassment of University staff by a third party between September 2010 and January 2017 raises questions about such accusations and about those who make them
Surely the organisers of the TEDx talk where she is speaking on her work as a world leading researcher and a pioneer of ME despite bravely fighting threatening bed-bound patients should be sent a copy?

Crawley continues to spin like a top as she distorts the truth and cover ups the fact that she has seized children from their parents and subjected them to forced intensive physiotherapy and then dumped them when her treatment caused a very distressed child to become paralysed. Knowledgeable parents live in fear of Crawley for they are in dread of the damage she does to their children,

TEDsx organisers need to be told this before her talk in a few days
 

Onslow

Active Member
You need to be careful that you have your facts correct when you accuse someone of "lying". The FOI just found that no complaints had been formally lodged with the university, but Prof Crawley has described the contents of various threatening emails she has received. I'm guessing she just didn't report those to the university, as she guessed they were just random dickheads.

Let's not get down to the level of PR, with constant harrassment, abuse and libel of researchers.
 

Abrin

Well-Known Member
You need to be careful that you have your facts correct when you accuse someone of "lying". The FOI just found that no complaints had been formally lodged with the university, but Prof Crawley has described the contents of various threatening emails she has received. I'm guessing she just didn't report those to the university, as she guessed they were just random dickheads.

Let's not get down to the level of PR, with constant harrassment, abuse and libel of researchers.
While I am completely with you that you need to have your facts correct when you accuse someone of lying, I do have to point out that most universities would probably have a written policy that require you to report any sorts of threats so it is rather suspicious that nothing was said.

I am not in the business of making moral judgements about whether or not people are liars but I do have to say the fact that she has described the contents of various threatening emails she has received but yet did not pass those emails on to the university afterwards does bring up some questions that can not be so easily dismissed.
 

Abrin

Well-Known Member
I've have been digging a little more on this subject and I have a question, did Crawley actually publicly claim that colleagues at the university opened her mail for her and sifted potentially abusive emails?
 

Not dead yet!

Well-Known Member
http://www.tymestrust.org/pdfs/noharassmentbristol.pdf

The Young ME Sufferers Trust No Reported Harassment at Bristol University (Information Obtained Under FOI)





Surely the organisers of the TEDx talk where she is speaking on her work as a world leading researcher and a pioneer of ME despite bravely fighting threatening bed-bound patients should be sent a copy?

Crawley continues to spin like a top as she distorts the truth and cover ups the fact that she has seized children from their parents and subjected them to forced intensive physiotherapy and then dumped them when her treatment caused a very distressed child to become paralysed. Knowledgeable parents live in fear of Crawley for they are in dread of the damage she does to their children,

TEDsx organisers need to be told this before her talk in a few days

I haven't heard about this, don't know who she is, and I'd really like to have some background please. I've heard of the child seizing in Denmark for the first time in the Unrest movie. I'm still new to this community and don't know what this is about. The Denmark doctor's name is Fink (haha, really?), so I haven't heard about this one or any harassment. Sorry I'm too new to have the background.
 

Onslow

Active Member
While I am completely with you that you need to have your facts correct when you accuse someone of lying, I do have to point out that most universities would probably have a written policy that require you to report any sorts of threats so it is rather suspicious that nothing was said.

I am not in the business of making moral judgements about whether or not people are liars but I do have to say the fact that she has described the contents of various threatening emails she has received but yet did not pass those emails on to the university afterwards does bring up some questions that can not be so easily dismissed.
To be honest, I feel that anyone seriously questioning Crawley about whether or not she did actually receive threats must be delusional or evil. It's pretty obvious that these threats to happen...I've seen them myself, and you can see lots of this stuff posted publicly on PR and other forums. And do you seriously think that a whole bunch of top researchers such as Myra McClure and others would be just making this stuff up? Seriously, this kind of bullshit is what is giving CFS a bad name.
 

Abrin

Well-Known Member
To be honest, I feel that anyone seriously questioning Crawley about whether or not she did actually receive threats must be delusional or evil.
So, let me get this straight. You take issue with people calling Crawley a liar but you have no problems calling someone who question whether or not she did actually receive threats delusional or evil?

Your bias on this matter is seriously showing.

Seriously, this kind of bullshit is what is giving CFS a bad name.
And here I thought it was the patient infighting and the name-calling that was giving CFS a bad name. Each to their own I suppose.
 

Onslow

Active Member
So, let me get this straight. You take issue with people calling Crawley a liar but you have no problems calling someone who question whether or not she did actually receive threats delusional or evil?
Correct. There is no evidence she is a liar...from the above you can see people are just assuming she's a liar, but the evidence doesn't actually show that. IMO calling someone a liar in public based on supposition is pretty nasty. Especially given the fact that we know for certain that there are people out there harassing CFS researchers, and there is no plausible reason why any researcher would make something like this up.
 

IrisRV

Well-Known Member
Correct. There is no evidence she is a liar..
There is also no evidence to support her damaging PUBLIC claims of major personal harrassment. When a professional makes such claims publicly, she has the moral responsibility to provide evidence. She has not. There is no good reason to make damaging public claims like that without providing solid evidence.

It is particularly egregious for a medical professional to make unsubtantiated public claims against patients.

The people she's accusing cannot be expected to prove a negative -- that they did not send those messages. That cannot be done logically. The burden of proof lies on the accuser who could prove the positive by providing clear evidence of her claim. That she doesn't is telling.

Under the circumstances, it is a legitimate assessment that she was not telling the truth.
 

Onslow

Active Member
There is also no evidence to support her damaging PUBLIC claims of major personal harrassment.
Actually, she has provided copies of the emails...one of which was published in the Sunday Times magazine.

Under the circumstances, it is a legitimate assessment that she was not telling the truth.
Not really. It's more of a lynch mob. It's ironic in a number of ways that CFS patients of all people would be doing this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IrisRV

Well-Known Member
Not really. It's more of a lynch mob. It's ironic in a number of ways that CFS patients of all people would be doing this
Not at all. It's simple logic. No delusions, evil, lynching, or mob involved. At all. Let's try to avoid hyperbolic, overly emotional language and stick to logical thinking. Please address the points of the discussion rather than calling people who disagree with you delusional or evil. That neither makes your point nor forwards the discussion in any way.

There's nothing ironic about ME/CFS patients drawing logical conclusions from the available data.

Copies of emails are very poor evidence for any number of reasons.

Unless Crawley took the email to an authority with the capability to evaluate its authenticity and verify that the writer is, in fact, an ME/CFS patient, it is worthless as evidence of harassment by patients. Her university says she didn't even report these supposed harassing emails to anyone there, nor did she report them to the police for some inexplicable reason, yet she wants to use them as definite evidence. That's not logical.

Besides, researchers often get unpleasant communications from people who disagree with their research. The writers of those emails are usually crackpots who represent no larger group. No one makes fuss about a couple of disagreeable emails (except Crawley and some other BPS-school researchers, it would seem) unless they are threatening or otherwise appear dangerous. Threatening communications are supposed to be reported to the university and usually to the police as well. That's common university practice as a matter of researcher and general campus security.

The fact that Crawley took copies of emails she said she received to the media to publish rather than report them to her university and the police, who could have verified their authenticity and evaluate the level of threat, says a lot about both Crawley and the nature of her "evidence".

As I said earlier, Crawley is making accusations about the ME/CFS patient community. It is up to her to provide solid evidence for her claims if she expects her claims to be accepted as truth. She has chosen not to, despite many opportunities to do so. That makes her claims unfounded.

Especially given the fact that we know for certain that there are people out there harassing CFS researchers, and there is no plausible reason why any researcher would make something like this up.
No, we do not know that. It is far from accepted knowlege. No verifiable evidence has been provided. There are plenty of plausible reasons researchers would make up something like this, especially when their research is controversial and under fire by both patients and other scientists. That doesn't mean the researcher is making it up, just that your argument of no plausible reason is fallacious.
 

Onslow

Active Member
Well, it's pretty obvious that the CFS community has a problem with abuse and harassment, more so that most other research. You can see this from the reports from various researchers (not just one or two), from looking at forums, etc. I've seen some of it first hand, but I'm not really interested in posting my own evidence, as it will just lead to abuse directed at me, which to be honest I'm not interested in. If you want to deny it then fine, I have better things to do with my time than argue with you, but you shouldn't be defending the OP calling Crawley a liar.
 

IrisRV

Well-Known Member
Well, it's pretty obvious that the CFS community has a problem with abuse and harassment, more so that most other research.
There's nothing obvious about it. It is not accepted knowlege. It has not been proven. Research in many other areas is subject to far more abuse and hostility -- any research involving harm to animals, climate change research, HIV research, gun-deaths research.... The list goes on and on. You are stating your opinions as fact and seem to expect others to accept them without evidence. That is not logical.
but I'm not really interested in posting my own evidence
Then it isn't evidence for the purpose of supporting your argument that such abuse exists.
as it will just lead to abuse directed at me
You are claiming something will happen. You cannot know what will happen. That's illogical. Prophecies based on personal biases provide no grounds for acceptance or further discussion.
I have better things to do with my time than argue with you,
That's fine with me. In fact, I couldn't agree more.
you shouldn't be defending the OP calling Crawley a liar.
I do not accept that you are in any position to tell me what I should or shouldn't do.
 

Abrin

Well-Known Member
Well, it's pretty obvious that the CFS community has a problem with abuse and harassment, more so that most other research.
Your claim about this is very suspect since according to the Professor of Microbiology & Immunology in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University the CFS community has been falsely accused of abuse and harassment in the past.

"The First-Tier Tribunal also found no evidence supporting the PACE investigators’ hyperbolic claims of being the victims of a campaign of harassment, although the ruling acknowledged that Trudie Chalder had been heckled somewhere. Let me reiterate this critical point: The expensive lawyers for Queen Mary University of London, representing the interests of the PACE team to the best of their august abilities, presented NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the investigators were subject to abuse and death threats. (Having said that, I have no doubt that Dr. Crawley and other researchers have received many distasteful, hostile e-mails. While that is deeply unfortunate, it is no excuse for the persistent refusal to acknowledge flaws in the research.)"
 

Not dead yet!

Well-Known Member
So, let me get this straight. You take issue with people calling Crawley a liar but you have no problems calling someone who question whether or not she did actually receive threats delusional or evil?

Your bias on this matter is seriously showing.



And here I thought it was the patient infighting and the name-calling that was giving CFS a bad name. Each to their own I suppose.

Whether we are fractious and tend to argue with each other is not the point. You don't deny someone proper medical care just because you don't "like" them. A similar thing happens with the elderly. You get nurses who will neglect a patient simply because they are "too demanding." That nurse still gets fired, or the family still removes the patient from the facility and puts them where they will be better cared for. Liking us is not required. Helping us is.
 

Abrin

Well-Known Member
Whether we are fractious and tend to argue with each other is not the point. You don't deny someone proper medical care just because you don't "like" them. A similar thing happens with the elderly. You get nurses who will neglect a patient simply because they are "too demanding." That nurse still gets fired, or the family still removes the patient from the facility and puts them where they will be better cared for. Liking us is not required. Helping us is.
I must admit that I am completely confused to the point you are making in regards to my quote and how it connects with either Crawley or with OnSlow claiming that if people don't agree with their position it is because they are delusional or evil. Could you please clarify?
 

Not dead yet!

Well-Known Member
I must admit that I am completely confused to the point you are making in regards to my quote and how it connects with either Crawley or with OnSlow claiming that if people don't agree with their position it is because they are delusional or evil. Could you please clarify?
You said: "And here I thought it was the patient infighting and the name-calling that was giving CFS a bad name. Each to their own I suppose."

Whether or not CFS has a bad name has nothing to do with whether or not we deserve treatment.

And I asked before about the background of the Crawley or OnSlow issue. I still don't know what the argument is about. Someone named Crawley (whose history I don't know) claims they have been getting threats. But about what and why?

Well, it's pretty obvious that the CFS community has a problem with abuse and harassment, more so that most other research. You can see this from the reports from various researchers (not just one or two), from looking at forums, etc. I've seen some of it first hand, but I'm not really interested in posting my own evidence, as it will just lead to abuse directed at me, which to be honest I'm not interested in. If you want to deny it then fine, I have better things to do with my time than argue with you, but you shouldn't be defending the OP calling Crawley a liar.
TBH my reaction to this is WTF? How does this help?
 
Last edited:

Abrin

Well-Known Member
You said: "And here I thought it was the patient infighting and the name-calling that was giving CFS a bad name. Each to their own I suppose."

Whether or not CFS has a bad name has nothing to do with whether or not we deserve treatment.
Ah yes, thanks for clarifying. My brain is really slow today. Your point is a good one.

And I asked before about the background of the Crawley or OnSlow issue. I still don't know what the argument is about. Someone named Crawley (whose history I don't know) claims they have been getting threats. But about what and why?
Earlier in this thread I posted a link that while it wasn't specifically about Crawley that might be helpful to you?
 

Not dead yet!

Well-Known Member
Ah yes, thanks for clarifying. My brain is really slow today. Your point is a good one.



Earlier in this thread I posted a link that while it wasn't specifically about Crawley that might be helpful to you?

Thanks for the link :) I must have missed it earlier, sorry about that.

The blog articles certainly do help. I'm reminded of the first time I sat among doctors of Mathematics, just observing a panel of advanced Math experts as they discussed subjects far far FAR beyond my understanding. I remember thinking that these people could rewrite reality and none of us would know what they had done because none of us understands even a sentence. I was an advanced undergrad Math student then, preparing for grad school. It was the closest I've ever been to actual human magicians. Well, that and every time I failed to understand big-O notation in computer science, lol. Some things still elude me, but it's really cool that they don't elude others.

Statistics though, is still an applied math, so in theory it should be understandable by everyone with enough training. However, it's still a rare person who can catch a scientist in the fudging process of incorrect statistics. Lay people have done so, but it's about as often as layperson astronomers noticing something first.

I went through all that preamble because what I'm about to say would make no sense without it. The process of modern science often seems to progress in a way that looks like mobbing. But I think it's because of the Layperson Principle. Even if someone brought a libel suit (one scientist libeling another), well, first of all, the key fact is not yet discovered (ie. what will cure or reverse or even treat successfully, this scourge of ME/CFS?). So even if a suit were brought, it's likely to be argued via third parties. I mean, you don't expect a judge or even a lawyer to understand the math, so you get a group of public policy organizations and you show that the opinions on this side are more numerous than on that side.

Basically I can't imagine why we live in a world where PACE can't peacefully coexist with any other treatments, ART therapy, Dr. Goldstein's therapy, Ampligen, etc. Why can there be ONLY ONE? This isn't The Highlander, it's human lives going to waste.

I suspect the reason is that we're not trying to help humans regain their lives, we're trying to get insurers to cover the cheapest solution that works for a good percentage of people. I think it's based in a fallacy: that patients will use 10 different modes of healing if there are 10 available. But of course, if the cure works, we'd stop and go back to living. I would.

Actually on second thought, I think alternative solutions already exist and should be in use in general. Nobody knew why AZT helped AIDS patients at the time it was used, the understanding and improvement of ART therapy came later. So basically this is an argument about who pays. The policy writers have decided it's "ok to pay for PACE-based therapy" but it's not ok to pay for others? Well how can they say they're doing health care then? It's accounting.

If we're going to have a winner take all attitude about health conditions, then I suggest that we ask why that thinking isn't applied to classes of drugs, drug therapies indicated for diabestes (why insulin AND sulfonylureas, AND metformin, AND AND AND...), the many modes of therapy for cancer... No illness has ever been asked to accept only one treatment, and neither should our illness have only one treatment.

I suggest we leave the PACE treatment believers to their own devices and start working on validating the others, and getting insurance support for them. Fighting against PACE is a wasted effort and reductionist thinking.
 
Last edited:

Get Our Free ME/CFS and FM Blog!



Forum Tips

Support Our Work

DO IT MONTHLY

HEALTH RISING IS NOT A 501 (c) 3 NON-PROFIT

Shopping on Amazon.com For HR

Latest Resources

Top