Crawley: How to deal with anti-science BRS2017

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Likes
8,986
Tweets from Esther Crawley's BRS 2017 lecture






Thanks to MEmilitant for retweeting these.
 
Last edited:

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Likes
8,986




 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Likes
8,986




 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Likes
8,986




And a conclusion we will agree upon:

 
Messages
202
Likes
677
Why can't she understand that the 'dangers' are from researching into a disease using bogus (Oxford) research criteria? Many patients are aware of this and simply don't what her to be producing bad research about their illness.

Has she heard of the CCC? I literally want to ask her why she doesn't use it and dump the Oxford criteria.

She should try comparing her experience to those of our heroes in Norway and elsewhere who receive nothing but praise.
 

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
Likes
6,879
EC is a fraud and charlatan and using psychological tricks. She thinks by using the term anti-science then everyone must assume she is on the side of science fighting against the anti-science.

Best way to deal with this is for everyone on twitter to use #BRS2017 and flood it with all the best pro-science PACE trial articles. i.e. Tuller, Virology, Centre for Welfare Reform , Sense about Science USA, Rehmeyer, all the JHP ones, NYT etc.

This is the strategy needed to deal with anti-science charlatans like EC.

MEMilitant is an expert on this


 
Last edited:
Messages
5,256
Likes
31,971
I am unclear what Esther Crawley was doing last a British Renal Society meeting.

She seems no to have noticed that the FOI request that did get through was found not to be vexatious, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or whatever, but entirely reasonable. The information officer found the claims of anti-science to be unjustified. Moreover, the OMEGA petition seemed to get it right in that the application was turned down by the Wellcome. It was poorly thought through.

I may be slow on the uptake but this is now clear evidence that Dr Crawley is delusional about the quality of her science and the nature of her critics. She did not mention that if you do bad science you may get Emeritus Professors of Medicine pointing out how bad it is, as well as patients.

Who on earth is this Sridharan fellow? Has anyone pointed out to him (or BRS) that a hundred scientists have written to the Lancet saying she and her friends are talking nonsense?
 

dangermouse

Senior Member
Messages
430
Likes
2,250
I am unclear what Esther Crawley was doing last a British Renal Society meeting.

She seems no to have noticed that the FOI request that did get through was found not to be vexatious, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or whatever, but entirely reasonable. The information officer found the claims of anti-science to be unjustified. Moreover, the OMEGA petition seemed to get it right in that the application was turned down by the Wellcome. It was poorly thought through.

I may be slow on the uptake but this is now clear evidence that Dr Crawley is delusional about the quality of her science and the nature of her critics. She did not mention that if you do bad science you may get Emeritus Professors of Medicine pointing out how bad it is, as well as patients.

Who on earth is this Sridharan fellow? Has anyone pointed out to him (or BRS) that a hundred scientists have written to the Lancet saying she and her friends are talking nonsense?
Good point, what was EC doing at a Renal presentation?

Regarding the FOI request, it's looking like EC believes if she omits or denies information often enough people will believe her and her colleagues.

What I don't understand is: what is in it for these people (BPS followers) to relentlessly target ME/CFS patients? And, why are they allowed to continue to dictate and dominate in the NHS? Why would the establishment (seemingly) ignore the scandal of PACE and current biomedical progress? Am I missing something?
 

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
Likes
6,879
I am unclear what Esther Crawley was doing last a British Renal Society meeting.

She seems no to have noticed that the FOI request that did get through was found not to be vexatious, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or whatever, but entirely reasonable. The information officer found the claims of anti-science to be unjustified. Moreover, the OMEGA petition seemed to get it right in that the application was turned down by the Wellcome. It was poorly thought through.

I may be slow on the uptake but this is now clear evidence that Dr Crawley is delusional about the quality of her science and the nature of her critics. She did not mention that if you do bad science you may get Emeritus Professors of Medicine pointing out how bad it is, as well as patients.

Who on earth is this Sridharan fellow? Has anyone pointed out to him (or BRS) that a hundred scientists have written to the Lancet saying she and her friends are talking nonsense?


She has resorted to using the SOCIAL MEDIA TASK FORCE to disseminate her fake news!!! :lol::lol::rofl::rofl:

He is a the social media police for the International Society for Nephrology (about kidneys)

Nephrologist; Member of the ISN Social Media Task Force. Tweets are not medical advice
For this upcoming World Congress of Nephrology, ISN has constituted a Social Media Task Force, joining forces with a group of dedicated people, to cover the congress on social media. This will include live coverage of selected sessions, interviews of participants and key stakeholders, and much more.

https://www.wcn2017.org/organizers/social-media-task-force

Can someone please please tell me how on earth a professional person can stand up and do this and still be able to comply with their professional bodies regulation and maintain their competence licence?

Please Dr Edwards - tell me does the medical professional institutes and the GMC have no standards or ethics or regulations. Why is she still a licensed doc? These were all bare face lies and smearing of vulnerable patient groups.

There is no industry or profession (including the much recently maligned banking industry ) that allows this sort of delusional lies to go on by their members without either reprimanding or being struck off. What is wrong with medicine??????
 

Gijs

Senior Member
Messages
659
Likes
1,343
I am unclear what Esther Crawley was doing last a British Renal Society meeting.

She seems no to have noticed that the FOI request that did get through was found not to be vexatious, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or whatever, but entirely reasonable. The information officer found the claims of anti-science to be unjustified. Moreover, the OMEGA petition seemed to get it right in that the application was turned down by the Wellcome. It was poorly thought through.

I may be slow on the uptake but this is now clear evidence that Dr Crawley is delusional about the quality of her science and the nature of her critics. She did not mention that if you do bad science you may get Emeritus Professors of Medicine pointing out how bad it is, as well as patients.

Who on earth is this Sridharan fellow? Has anyone pointed out to him (or BRS) that a hundred scientists have written to the Lancet saying she and her friends are talking nonsense?
'Delusional' is the right qualification. I totally agree!
 

lilpink

Senior Member
Messages
977
Likes
5,777
Location
UK
Why would a CFS researcher speak at a renal conference about how to deal with anti-science?
Maybe renal science is the next target in the cross hairs of the MUPS attack? Certainly NHS Wales microbiology depts have their urine testing protocols set up so that those who have gram positive / anaerobic organisms causing kidney infections won't be discovered. A negative test is bound to equal a MUPS dx: surely it MUSt?