Crawley: How to deal with anti-science BRS2017
- Thread starter Cheshire
- Start date
- Messages
- 807
- Likes
- 3,603
be interesting to merge Invest in ME conference with the CMRC one and force all the psychs to attend
- Messages
- 807
- Likes
- 3,603
Are you saying you did find them appealing!? 
- Messages
- 807
- Likes
- 3,603
Chalder and Moss Morris arent appealing either
Kittens are appealing.
Attachments
- Messages
- 902
- Likes
- 2,921
Psychologists
She does not seem to differentiate strongly between "chronic fatigue" and CFS.
http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2017/01/19/archdischild-2016-311198# - for example.
Which claims to be a CFS/ME study on its title, then pivots to:
'We identified adolescents who had disabling fatigue of >6 months duration without a known cause at ages 13, 16 and 18 years.' - which isn't quite the same thing at all.
She does not seem to differentiate strongly between "chronic fatigue" and CFS.
http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2017/01/19/archdischild-2016-311198# - for example.
Which claims to be a CFS/ME study on its title, then pivots to:
'We identified adolescents who had disabling fatigue of >6 months duration without a known cause at ages 13, 16 and 18 years.' - which isn't quite the same thing at all.
I don't think it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if she did attend, remember Dr Clare Gerada spoke at an IiME conference and that didn't change her or her husband (ie Wessely) perspective.
These people know full well that their point if view is scientifically invalid as Yogi so rightly said in a previous comment.
And we need to remember this isn't about two points of view where you can discuss and debate the relative merits, the peer reviewed evidence clearly show ME is a serious multi system disease not a behavioural disorder (IOM report 2015 and subsequent papers), evidence which invalidates the behavioural view. There is no debate.
Crawley was at CMRC conferences hearing people like Lipkin talk, yet she still persists with her baseless, unethical point of view, subjecting children to inappropriate and potentially dangerous treatments.
These people know full well that their point if view is scientifically invalid as Yogi so rightly said in a previous comment.
And we need to remember this isn't about two points of view where you can discuss and debate the relative merits, the peer reviewed evidence clearly show ME is a serious multi system disease not a behavioural disorder (IOM report 2015 and subsequent papers), evidence which invalidates the behavioural view. There is no debate.
Crawley was at CMRC conferences hearing people like Lipkin talk, yet she still persists with her baseless, unethical point of view, subjecting children to inappropriate and potentially dangerous treatments.
I just came across this telling article by Margaret Williams from 2011, and though I know it must have been referenced in PR at the time, I thought it might be helpful to @Nephrofan if he is trying to understand what is, and has been, going on.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-Media-and-ME.htm
The first few paragraphs are below:-
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-Media-and-ME.htm
The first few paragraphs are below:-
Indeed. Given that her oft used phrase is anti-science, you would hope that any self respecting scientists in the room would not take her somewhat offensive comments at face value without checking out their veracity, looking at both sides of the equation, digging deeper. Otherwise one can only assume to be a scientist today does not mean what it used to.
Unless of course, even that is a kind interpretation and you are right about the something else going on . . . .
Unless of course, even that is a kind interpretation and you are right about the something else going on . . . .
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,157
- Likes
- 17,726
I suspect that Crawley likes to speak at conferences for medical specialisms where the attendees are busy doctors there to update their specialist knowledge in their own field unrelated to hers. Her audience, who are likely to know almost nothing about ME, take at face value what she says, and won't see any reason to spend time digging into the story behind her claims of anti-science harassment.
We are tending to assume that her audience are primarily scientists. I would suggest that her audience are probably primarily doctors, most of whom will never have done any research. They are trained to learn vast amounts of knowledge and apply this knowledge to treatment of patients. Yes, they should take a scientific approach to this, but they may never have actually carried out a research project or had to analyse and interpret data. They will read some scientific papers, but, I contend, are unlikely to have the time, inclination or training to dig below the surface of what is being presented to them by researchers.
The few doctors who go into academia also do PhD's where they supposedly learn research methods. I don't think most attendees at these conferences are researchers. The speakers are probably researchers, the audience mostly probably are not.
My point is that Crawley's message both about ME and about how to deal with harassment by avoiding sharing data, may simply come across as fairly irrelevant to a busy doctor's daily life. A momentary evocation of sympathy, and praise for her supposed courage, and a general negative impression of ME patients as difficult people to be avoided, and/or a vague feeling that there's some sort of unpleasant mass of oddballs out there who are anti-science.
Perhaps they actually rather enjoy her talks because they get a feeling of self-congratulation for being part of a profession that stands up to the demons of anti-science, a sort of solidarity with the brave doctor fighting the forces of darkness in order to help the suffering. I can see how easy it would be to be inspired...
I'm certain she wouldn't dare to present the same talk to the IiME conference or the International ME/CFS conferences. I wonder whether she'll do it at the CMRC conference. I hope, if she does, there will be people there to call her bluff.
We are tending to assume that her audience are primarily scientists. I would suggest that her audience are probably primarily doctors, most of whom will never have done any research. They are trained to learn vast amounts of knowledge and apply this knowledge to treatment of patients. Yes, they should take a scientific approach to this, but they may never have actually carried out a research project or had to analyse and interpret data. They will read some scientific papers, but, I contend, are unlikely to have the time, inclination or training to dig below the surface of what is being presented to them by researchers.
The few doctors who go into academia also do PhD's where they supposedly learn research methods. I don't think most attendees at these conferences are researchers. The speakers are probably researchers, the audience mostly probably are not.
My point is that Crawley's message both about ME and about how to deal with harassment by avoiding sharing data, may simply come across as fairly irrelevant to a busy doctor's daily life. A momentary evocation of sympathy, and praise for her supposed courage, and a general negative impression of ME patients as difficult people to be avoided, and/or a vague feeling that there's some sort of unpleasant mass of oddballs out there who are anti-science.
Perhaps they actually rather enjoy her talks because they get a feeling of self-congratulation for being part of a profession that stands up to the demons of anti-science, a sort of solidarity with the brave doctor fighting the forces of darkness in order to help the suffering. I can see how easy it would be to be inspired...
I'm certain she wouldn't dare to present the same talk to the IiME conference or the International ME/CFS conferences. I wonder whether she'll do it at the CMRC conference. I hope, if she does, there will be people there to call her bluff.
We're so devious aren't we? I hope this point makes it onto Esther's next version of her Powerpoint slides...