My understanding is that there may be a discussion amongst (some of) the board members this week about a message of support in favour of Crawley
Would that mean supporting Crawley's accusations of libel in which case they may well be taking on a legal risk that they could also be libeling others with the accusation. Of course Crawley isn't doing herself any favours by staying quiet about what her exact accusations are.
Or would that support for Crawley's claims that opposition to her trials and PACE is anti-science. (and more generally attacks on patients).
Or support for Crawley's trial protocols which will lead to uninterpretable results as they only have subjective measures to measure an open label trial. I guess now they have absorbed AYME then they may feel they have to back this as AYME signed up to them. But this is just bad science and wasting government money.
Or support for her poor work where she declares everyone who is tired has ME.
Or support for her running trials where she doesn't get informed consent because she fails to warn of the potential side effects of GET/CBT.
Or support for her for failing to publish Smile results in a timely manner.
Or support for her in her dismissing concerns about PACE and claiming results stand.
Or support for her trying to duplicate the Biobank in her mega proposal.
Is there anything positive to support. Generally I've been shocked by the poor standard of her papers and surprised they get through peer review.