Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Countrygirl, Nov 20, 2017.
and it was a publicly advertised talk with no mention of any restrictions.
Please be careful when making such statements.
The "Archives of Disease in Childhood" paper states:
Both the Linbury Trust and the Ashden Trust are part of the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts http://www.sfct.org.uk/ and, as such, have some very reputable people on their boards of trustees.
Whilst there is a note acknowledging Bristol Uni as a recipient of funding in the 2015 report & accounts, the amount and purpose of the grant isn't specified.
From p11 of the April 2015 Ashden Trust Annual report & Accounts :
"University of Bristol: £2,521 Towards the scientific study of the Lightning Process at Bristol University."
The real concern here ought to be that the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) were involved in the funding of this study.
Given their remit, they really ought to be more scientifically robust in their scrutiny of such research proposals and therefore have processes in place which precluded this kind of crap from being funded.
If she did say this and there was no restraining order then that woul be a good libel for DT to follow up, and he could ask for a public apology
These things only have any "force" if they are "enforced" i.e. followed up by legal action.
As such, this particular action (if such an action has yet been taken) is pretty meaningless on its own. It's a bluff. An attempt to bully David into silence.
Would Bristol subsequently back it up by taking legal action?
I don't know. Nobody other than themselves knows. That's the whole point of a bluff.
But they have deep pockets and (like a lot of morally bankrupt large organisations) are probably not beyond using the huge financial disparity between them and their opponents as a means to bullying them into submission.
As such, one of the most useful things that we could do collectively (as patients), is to start crowdfunding again, in order to build up a legal defence contingency fund for David.
I was scribbling rapidly and she dropped her voice and was muttering to the audience at this point and I was straining to hear, which is why I inserted a question mark here. All I could be sure about was that 'something' had been sent to him/his university( which d. says he never received). I did hear an accusation of defamation in the context of a reference to the expense of US lawyers. In other words, she couldn't pursue that line of attack.
It could only be enforced in the UK arising from a UK court. I really doubt they would succeed in a US court, and would likely lose and have large financial costs.
Yes. I believe that it would have to be pursued in a UK court, where (in all likelihood) they would also lose, because their arguments are baseless.
Lol..that too. But her pneumatic heaving bosom and breathy presentations (so 'not sisterhood' / so 'not professional') were more my thinking
It is worth returning to David's blogs to read his responses to the many attacks by Mark Paine (who is he?).
Here is one of DT's responses to his harasser:
davetuller Mark Paine • 15 hours ago
I'm sorry, Mark, but you are 100 % wrong. As one of the posters said, read paragraph 18.104.22.168 of the NICE guidance. PEM, delayed by 24 hours, is very clearly part of the definition of fatigue.
I have a doctorate in public health from Berkeley, so I am a social scientist as well as a journalist--I am not a biological scientist. Moreover, I was not "fired" from my job at Berkeley. Many academics at the University of California--those not in tenured positions--are on outside funding (i.e. not from the state) or a mix of outside and state funding. When that money is scarce, as it is these days, positions are not funded and people need to figure out somewhere to pump money into the system.
The School of Public Health backs my efforts on ME/CFS and was very happy to invite me to crowdfund into Berkeley so they could continue to employ me--when I came up with the funding, they were extremely happy not to lose me. I have offered Professor Crawley multiple opportunities to explain her objections to my work and point out what is wrong--there is no libel or defamation unless things are inaccurate. I offered to post her full statement on Virology Blog. She has refused to take me up on this offer. I have not "harassed" her or "abused" her, no matter what she feels about my writing. I have vigorously argued that her research is seriously flawed--as it very clearly is. She has responded by accusing me of libel rather than actually debating the specific points I have raised. My tone is completely beside the point. I have expressed myself aggressively because patients have expressed themselves politely for years and gotten no traction at all. If you, Mark, point out legitimate inaccuracies in my work, I am happy to correct them.
The fact is, EVERYONE except you recognizes that PEM is a required symptom in the NICE guidance. After my "libelous" blog post, in fact, Professor Crawley amended her protocol for FITNET to make it clear that PEM is a required symptom--as it is in the NICE guidance itself. She did not give me credit for pointing out that this was NOT the case in her initial proposal. I suggest you check your facts before you accuse me of harassment and abuse
Mark Paine would appear to be this chap, a CBT counsellor. A Masters' in Psychology but does not appear to have any formal medical training.
If there is a recording of the presentation I would like to be notified of it and have access. I may be able to do something useful in response, probably in terms of contacting Bristol University and or the College of Physicians.
I was hoping to be able to do a transcript when the video is available - if one hasn't already been done.
@Countrygirl has access to the recording
That sounds like a potentially very frutiful avenue to follow.
If he is confused then how many GP's or nurses working for the NHS and possibly carrying out diagnoses are also confused?
Nearly all of them?
After discussions back channel, DT will make the decision when it is to be released as we wait upon further possible developments.
DT is our chief concern at the moment and he needs time to place all his ducks in a row and the video is useful evidence which he might need.
Even if it wasn't deemed possible to put the video on-line, if it could be made available to Prof Edwards it sounds as if that could be a very productive move.
Sorry CG, I posted just after you so didn't see this post.
I found him too when I searched, but could find no direct association, but no one else appeared on a google search.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.