• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Dr David Tuller: Bristol's Report Due Soon; Slides From My Oxford Talk

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,488
Location
UK
http://www.virology.ws/2019/10/21/t...KNC0VMiicyk7ClYSpaHy9mrb70lUCAnwEjYY-FVl0iNZA

Trial By Error: Bristol’s Report Due Soon; Slides from My Oxford Talk
21 OCTOBER 2019
By David Tuller, DrPH

A day of reckoning could be coming for Bristol University and Professor Esther Crawley, the ethically challenged pediatrician whose work has come under official scrutiny (that is, under scrutiny from people with greater authority than me) on multiple fronts. According to the Health Research Authority, the National Health Service unit that overseas research ethics (or in this case, the lack of research ethics), Bristol’s supposedly “independent” investigation of Professor Crawley’s decision to exempt multiple studies from ethical review on the questionable grounds that they were “service evaluation” is due out this week–more than three months late. That’s on top of the massive “correction/clarification” posted in July by Archives of Disease in Childhood about the methodological violations involved in the conduct and reporting of the pediatric study of the woo-woo Lightning Process.

I have written dozens of blog posts about these two egregious studies. Instead of acting like a bonafide Russell Group university and addressing serious questions about breaches of the scientific process by high-profile investigators, Bristol has generally taken a more Sopranos-like approach by complaining about my “behaviour” to my own academic institution. The university agreed to undertake this current review of Professor Crawley’s studies only after being pressed to do so by the HRA, which took my concerns seriously. I am extremely curious to see how Bristol will choose to explain the anomalies of these purported “service evaluation” studies. (I have discussed at length elsewhere the differences between “research,” which requires ethical review, and “service evaluation,” which does not.).......................
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,488
Location
UK
@Countrygirl Did you go to hear Dr. David Tuller's lecture in person?

I wish, @Gingergrrl . My travelling days are long gone.................it would cost me months in bed to get to Oxford, sadly.

I did attend the Exeter lecture by Dr Esther Crawley with David though.................the one where she chucked him out on his ear. It was an eye-opening experience.........................and I came away chuffed to be referred to by EC (along with Andy who was sitting next to me) as an 'activist'. At my age and following decades of decrepitude, I was tickled pink.
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,488
Location
UK
Crawley in the clear!

Bristol University can continue with their promotion of child abuse of youngsters with ME. It is all quite ethical, apparently. One day...................................!

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/new...mZ0WioXGeTtA4ZBT4umvCKn59vbR8k-6SIrZCB29FO0hQ

We have published the report of an investigation into concerns raised about eleven publications on CFS and ME all of which cited the same National Health Service Research Ethics Committee reference number 07/Q2006/48.
This review was commissioned by the HRA and undertaken with the support of the University of Bristol in line with the HRA’s third party complaints procedure. An expert panel reviewed a specific set of questions sent to them by the HRA. The panel was chaired by an independent expert selected by the HRA and included members with expertise in NHS academic research and service evaluation who were independent of the study subject matter. No conflicts of interest were reported by any panel member.
The scientific content of the eleven publications on CFS/ME and the study findings were outside the remit of the HRA and were not covered by this review.

No additional ethical review was required. Each study was assessed against a number of reference documents including the relevant editions of GAfREC and the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research to establish whether the study required an ethics opinion. Certain types of research do not require ethical review. It was recommended that the ethics statement should be reworded and clarified in all eleven cases

(e) In two papers, additional minor textual changes in the main body of the publication would improve clarity.

The panel did not recommend the withdrawal of any publication, but made separate specific recommendations for corrections to the ethics statements of all eleven papers. There were suggested minor amendments to the text of two papers, to be notified to the relevant journal editors for each of the publications reviewed.

The panel recommended that funding bodies be notified, where appropriate.
 
Last edited: