Crawley lied: No harassment reports (Bristol University)

[Demepivo]

Adam Lowe has published a piece in Vada magazine about the subject

http://vadamagazine.com/news/esther-crawley-claims-harassment-university-no-record

Controversial Bristol University researcher Esther Crawley, who claims to have treated children with ME/CFS by using a treatment based on two pseudosciences, has made waves among her colleagues in academia after implying she had received numerous threatening communications over many years.

However, a Freedom of Information request to her own institution by The Tymes Trust, revealed that no such incidents had been reported to them. Furthermore, a previous tribunal with the Information Commissioner, which had examined the claims by a small segment of researchers (who use primarily psycho-social approaches to treating this biological illness) that they were being harassed and abused by ‘vexatious’ disabled people, found such claims to be ‘grossly exaggerated’ and at risk of undermining researchers’ claims of objectivity.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/925062918193983490

 

[Large Donner]

Why would Bristol University hold records of her being harassed? Has she ever claimed to have reported such incidents to Bristol University or that they have ever received any threats aimed at her?

 

[Grigor]

Why would Bristol University hold records of her being harassed? Has she ever claimed to have reported such incidents to Bristol University or that they have ever received any threats aimed at her?

She said in her talk something like she was being well protected by Bristol University. I'm not sure if it was related to the harassment or the data.

 

[Large Donner]

She said in her talk something like she was being well protected by Bristol University.

I can well believe that. Just look at he way QMUL dealt with the FOI issues and protected their own.

Sounds like a bit of a Freudian slip on Crawleys behalf.

 

[Peter Trewhitt]

If Prof Crawley felt genuinely threatened, she would have been advised by her employers and the police to retain relevant letters and emails, which she should be able to present in support of her accusations.

If she is being subjected to such a concerted persecution in relation to her paid work as described in her various talks she would surely be obliged to report it to her employers. Certainly it is NHS policy for staff to report sny such events (or was when I was still working some seventeen years ago), and presumably Bristol University has a similar policy. So both the relevant NHS and University HR departments should have detailed records, and would have a duty of care to report any serious concerns to the Police. Bristol University's response to the Tymes Trust FIO request suggests this has not happened. Perhaps there should be a freedom of information request to her NHS trust as well.

If incidents had been reported to the Police there should be crime numbers and information available on any resultant cautions or prosecutions. Presumably if there had been Police cautions or prosecutions, she would be making capital of this information.

In relation to her claims of being libelled by David Tuller and the Virology Blog, everything is in the public domain so she could simply list the libellous sections along with the web links, together with an explanation of why they are libellous.

Her accusations against the ME Association being anti-science on BBC Radio 4's Today programme are demonstrably false, as can be demonstrated by a cursory glance at their website, and should have been challenged by the interviewer when they were made.

There are now a significant number of people who feel obliged to monitor all her talks and publications, but she needs to demonstrate that is not a rational response potentially harmful clinical practise and bad research. She can only call it unreasonable persecution if she can demonstrate it involves false critiques and misinformation.

Discussion forums certainly do contain some intemperate comments about Prof Crawley, some of which contain inaccurate information. It may be I am guilty of posting comments that on reflection contained inaccurate information, especially as my memory is not reliable and in the heat of the moment I do not always check sources. If Prof Crawley wished it would easy to compile a collection of such comments that would apparently support her contention of persecution. It is interesting to speculate why she uses such as the bizarre concocted Times mock up of an anonymous letter to Prof Wessely in her talks rather than such comments. However using these would point people to discussion threads such as those on the OMEGA blog or the forums here where the intemperate remarks are usually out numbered by accurate and well argued critiques of her work. Pointing people to such forums would also indicate how widespread the concern about her work is within the patient community and how well informed and well argued many of the 'attacks' on her work really are.

I think Prof Crawley probably genuinely believes she is in the right and can only cope with the level of disagreement with her work by rationalising it to herself as persecution, but to make the accusations she does should require concrete evidence. Failure to produce this evidence should result in both Bristol University and MEGA (sorry I can never remember the name of the group behind it at present) insisting she issue public apologies. At some point the various organisations she represents must realise that they have been mislead.

 

[Alvin2]

I think Prof Crawley probably genuinely believes she is in the right and can only cope with the level of disagreement with her work by rationalising it to herself as persecution, but to make the accusations she does should require concrete evidence.

This is how alternative facters work, they believe their own lies and convince themselves, sometimes that is very easy to do [facepalm]

Failure to produce this evidence should result in both Bristol University and MEGA (sorry I can never remember the name of the group behind it at present) insisting she issue public apologies. At some point the various organisations she represents must realise that they have been mislead.

Organizations sometimes (maybe often) fall into the trap of covering for their bad employees, for various reasons such as simplicity, power (employee and/or organization), money, prestige (often loss of) and so forth.

 

[Sean]

Crawley has forfeited any right to complain.

 

[Yogi]

As a general point, the law on the UK on disability that might sort-of-apply is in three categories - none of which apply.
Judicial review - A review of a decision of a public body (none involved).
Disability hate crime - any crime, due to hating the disabled, or a group of them. (no specific crime has occurred).
Libel/slander - while this is a criminal offence, proving it is hard, and the lie told must be both knowing, provably untrue and of a specific person causing them damage.

Then there is the more general non-criminal sanction against a doctor - 'bringing the profession into disrepute' - this is where the doctors registration body in the UK agrees that the actions fell so far short of what is expected of a doctor in public life that they are no longer fit to practice.

The first three don't apply, as the narrow category each accepts does not apply in the case of someone making arguably incorrect speeches.

The last is extremely problematic and probably practically impossible unless you can get a sympathetic review board, and this seems unlikely at the moment.

Are you a lawyer? The GMC avenue could be successful given the serious nature of the allegations here.

 

[Yogi]

I just wanted to forewarn there is a small possibility I suspect that EC and the other psychs will now make up allegations of harassment or threats and now report them to their own universities.

I just wanted to be write a dated memo about this before they do so. This is the type of people we are dealing with.

It would be good to do more similar FOI's on all the PACE psychiatrists at their universities.

 

[Jo Best]

Are you a lawyer? The GMC avenue could be successful given the serious nature of the allegations here.

I agree that the backing of lawyers may succeed with complaints via the GMC, but otherwise, even when the GMC conceded in 2011 that they could find no evidence to show differences or similarities between children and adults with ME (the basis of Esther Crawley's rationale for testing the Lightning Process in children before its safety and efficacy had first been tested in adults as would accord with all relevant research guidelines) they still decided to take no action, which was reported by Esther Crawley as the GMC having said there was no case to answer.

 

[Yogi]

I agree that the backing of lawyers may succeed with complaints via the GMC, but otherwise, even when the GMC conceded in 2011 that they could find no evidence to show differences or similarities between children and adults with ME (the basis of Esther Crawley's rationale for testing the Lightning Process in children before its safety and efficacy had first been tested in adults as would accord with all relevant research guidelines) they still decided to take no action, which was reported by Esther Crawley as the GMC having said there was no case to answer.

I understand. Very demoralising.

Don't ever give up. Try, Try and Try Again.

We may just succeed.

In the mean time her evidence file is looking a bit thick.

http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Esther_Crawley

 

[Sean]

I just wanted to forewarn there is a small possibility I suspect that EC and the other psychs will now make up allegations of harassment or threats and now report them to their own universities.

I think the possibility of greatly exaggerated or completely fabricated allegations is more than small, and has almost certainly been happening since very early on in the alleged harassment/threats saga.