Crawley: How to deal with anti-science BRS2017
- Thread starter Cheshire
- Start date
That would be an example of Schrödinger's patient, one who is both listened to and also ignored by the mainstream scientific community in this country... 
@Nephrofan - if you're still lurking around (and I suspect you're not)...
As has already been observed upthread, this isn't true - at least one of your tweets carried a personal opinion that certainly read like an endorsement.
Apart, it seems, from getting you to take down the offending tweets.
The proverbial 'messenger' who, in this instance was (apparently) unwittingly propagating her view that ME/CFS patients are 'anti-science' when nothing could be further from the truth.
As I've already said, this isn't true. But even it was, the issue is that you were - by your own admission - trying to ensure that her messages reached the widest possible audience. And given how controversial and offensive her messages obviously are to many people (including many scientists and researchers) you really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction you got.
If this is true you can explain why you blocked Keith Geraghty then? Maybe you can share his 'abusive' tweet with the rest of us?
Again - as I've already said - you certainly seemed to be endorsing it by tweeting the word 'Inspirational' alongside one of the images.
Can you understand how offensive and enraging that offhand comment might be to many on this forum? It completely undermines everything else you've said. "I don't understand the issue, and I'm happy to unquestioningly disseminate the controversial views of a figure who is widely distrusted by the patient community. But when patients direct me towards articles written by fellow medical professionals which explain why this controversial figure's research is so problematic - yeah, not sure I'm that interested to be honest."
Reading your post, I get a sense that you've blundered into a controversial issue that you don't understand and don't want to take the time to gain an understanding of, and now you're trying to extracate yourself and the ISN Social Media Task Force from it. I can't commend you for that, but I can sympatise (a bit) with your situation.
Literally no-one on this thread has abused you, so I don't understand why you're asking *us* to stop. If you've received abuse on Twitter (and you've presented us with no evidence to prove that you have) shouldn't you take it up with the people who've actually abused you, rather than an internet forum full of people who weren't involved?
Thank you very much for doing that. Now that I *can* commend.
Thank you very much for the good wishes. It's not my place to speak on behalf of everyone else on this forum, but I suspect that what we'd all appreciate a lot more than mere wishes of luck would be if you - and the wider membership of the ISN - took the time to educate yourself about the many serious problems with Dr Crawley's work instead of giving her a platform. Unfortunately from your reply it doesn't look like there's any serious prospect of that happening.
As has already been observed upthread, this isn't true - at least one of your tweets carried a personal opinion that certainly read like an endorsement.
Apart, it seems, from getting you to take down the offending tweets.
The proverbial 'messenger' who, in this instance was (apparently) unwittingly propagating her view that ME/CFS patients are 'anti-science' when nothing could be further from the truth.
As I've already said, this isn't true. But even it was, the issue is that you were - by your own admission - trying to ensure that her messages reached the widest possible audience. And given how controversial and offensive her messages obviously are to many people (including many scientists and researchers) you really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction you got.
If this is true you can explain why you blocked Keith Geraghty then? Maybe you can share his 'abusive' tweet with the rest of us?
Again - as I've already said - you certainly seemed to be endorsing it by tweeting the word 'Inspirational' alongside one of the images.
Can you understand how offensive and enraging that offhand comment might be to many on this forum? It completely undermines everything else you've said. "I don't understand the issue, and I'm happy to unquestioningly disseminate the controversial views of a figure who is widely distrusted by the patient community. But when patients direct me towards articles written by fellow medical professionals which explain why this controversial figure's research is so problematic - yeah, not sure I'm that interested to be honest."
Reading your post, I get a sense that you've blundered into a controversial issue that you don't understand and don't want to take the time to gain an understanding of, and now you're trying to extracate yourself and the ISN Social Media Task Force from it. I can't commend you for that, but I can sympatise (a bit) with your situation.
Literally no-one on this thread has abused you, so I don't understand why you're asking *us* to stop. If you've received abuse on Twitter (and you've presented us with no evidence to prove that you have) shouldn't you take it up with the people who've actually abused you, rather than an internet forum full of people who weren't involved?
Thank you very much for doing that. Now that I *can* commend.
Thank you very much for the good wishes. It's not my place to speak on behalf of everyone else on this forum, but I suspect that what we'd all appreciate a lot more than mere wishes of luck would be if you - and the wider membership of the ISN - took the time to educate yourself about the many serious problems with Dr Crawley's work instead of giving her a platform. Unfortunately from your reply it doesn't look like there's any serious prospect of that happening.
Last edited:
And on the flip side........they are not informed about the research funding being supported by the same 'vexacious' people something EC conveniently sweeps away.
@Nephrofan now you can access this site please take the time to look at the real scientific research projects that members are actively supporting/helping to fund across the world. Research that Crawley and her associates continually dismiss, research that could have been happening a lot sooner.
(See Ron Davis The Open Medicine foundation, Invest in ME[IimE], Naviaux, Fluge and Mella)
@Nephrofan now you can access this site please take the time to look at the real scientific research projects that members are actively supporting/helping to fund across the world. Research that Crawley and her associates continually dismiss, research that could have been happening a lot sooner.
(See Ron Davis The Open Medicine foundation, Invest in ME[IimE], Naviaux, Fluge and Mella)
You're certainly being too kind to EC, but you may be making a fair point about BRS. Although whatever excuse they may have had, they now have a duty to learn more about Crawley and decide whether it's in the interests of their patients (or anyone on the planet) to give her such an uncritical platform.
All involved so far seem keen to avoid taking responsibility or switching their brains on. That's the kind interpretation - the other is that something deliberate is going on.
All involved so far seem keen to avoid taking responsibility or switching their brains on. That's the kind interpretation - the other is that something deliberate is going on.
- Messages
- 2,157
- Likes
- 17,726
I suspect EC touts herself around all the medical conferences offering her talk on anti-science abuse etc. She just loves playing the hero, and garnering plaudits and admiration from her uninformed and unsuspecting colleagues.
@Nephrofan , if you are still reading this thread, you will have seen that we are not criticising the fact that you tweeted the slides from Prof. Crawley's talk. You had no way of knowing at the time that she was not what she paints herself to be.
However, now that you have been alerted to the situation, I hope you will alert the organisation that runs the Conference to the fact that they have had their invitation to speak abused by someone who is anti- science, the very opposite of the message she pretends to convey.
You can see clues to this, as others here have already pointed out, in the fact that she was promoting secrecy and rejection of information requests and data sharing. This is an anti-science message.
If you do not feel able yourself to enter further into this debate, I hope you will be able at least to inform us of the best way of alerting your fellow BRS members to the problem with Prof. Crawley's talk, perhaps by inviting someone like @Jonathan Edwards or @Keith Geraghty to write a piece for your organisation's publication or website.
@Nephrofan , if you are still reading this thread, you will have seen that we are not criticising the fact that you tweeted the slides from Prof. Crawley's talk. You had no way of knowing at the time that she was not what she paints herself to be.
However, now that you have been alerted to the situation, I hope you will alert the organisation that runs the Conference to the fact that they have had their invitation to speak abused by someone who is anti- science, the very opposite of the message she pretends to convey.
You can see clues to this, as others here have already pointed out, in the fact that she was promoting secrecy and rejection of information requests and data sharing. This is an anti-science message.
If you do not feel able yourself to enter further into this debate, I hope you will be able at least to inform us of the best way of alerting your fellow BRS members to the problem with Prof. Crawley's talk, perhaps by inviting someone like @Jonathan Edwards or @Keith Geraghty to write a piece for your organisation's publication or website.
- Messages
- 524
- Likes
- 3,901
Meanwhile a US commentator and a US neuroscientist ridiculing yesterday's events.
Also, this:
Also, this:
- Messages
- 491
- Likes
- 3,272
i am waiting on my apology from this junior doctor who says that he blocked those people who abused him or Crawley - I hope someone can contact him directly and get him to come on here or contact me directly to tell me how I abused anyone in anyway?
.....Im waiting Dr.
.....Im waiting Dr.
I don't know about you, but I find this offensive, and potentially libellous.
I worked very hard to gain my degree and was on course to be ..........................(huge shame!.......but one can be permitted a little foolishness in youth
) a psychologist.....................when ME struck.I was not hanging round street corners for my next fix as suggested in EC's slide
I was never a criminal.
I did not live in a slum.
I did not indulge in bad relationships.
EC. I regard your public comments as offensive!
I eagerly await your apology.
Yea, I looked at some of the conference retweeters. It was like a commercial marketing campaign. All about promoting the conference and networking - or as they more sinisterly call it, "tightening the cluster". There didn't seem to be any interest in argument or discussion, or even careful reflection on the things they were being told.
I have no hope for medical training in the UK. This and other evidence suggests these medics don't even have a basic grasp of critical thinking. Maybe too much emphasis on just learning what you're told, rather than training the skills to evaluate research themselves?
I know not every programme can do everything, but this seems important, because a medical degree seems to be widely accepted as a sufficient qualification for conducting or disseminating research. So I think Universities need to make it live up to its public image.
I have no hope for medical training in the UK. This and other evidence suggests these medics don't even have a basic grasp of critical thinking. Maybe too much emphasis on just learning what you're told, rather than training the skills to evaluate research themselves?
I know not every programme can do everything, but this seems important, because a medical degree seems to be widely accepted as a sufficient qualification for conducting or disseminating research. So I think Universities need to make it live up to its public image.
Last edited:
@RogerBlack, thanks so much for posting these. Your relaxed tab management habits really did us a great favour! (just glad I'm not the one using your computer!)
I do not recall how Sancho Panza dealt with his master's propensity for tilting at windmills or what happened when the mists cleared and the delusion became apparent, but there may still be something to be learned from this quote from Wikipedia:
"In Don Quixote the eponymous protagonist consistently misinterprets his own, his adversaries', and his allies' actions and motives- regularly resulting in apparently unjustified violent actions and consequences. One way of interpreting Don Quixote's tilting at windmills could be as an allegory to promote critical, sceptical or satirical evaluation of either a hero's motives, rationales and actions or a nation's foreign policies."
How apposite.
"In Don Quixote the eponymous protagonist consistently misinterprets his own, his adversaries', and his allies' actions and motives- regularly resulting in apparently unjustified violent actions and consequences. One way of interpreting Don Quixote's tilting at windmills could be as an allegory to promote critical, sceptical or satirical evaluation of either a hero's motives, rationales and actions or a nation's foreign policies."
How apposite.
- Messages
- 902
- Likes
- 2,921
I have tweeted at several of the people that tweeted in response to the conference, along the lines 'please review the evidence' and giving links to peer reviewed research.
I truly hope nobody is spinning this as 'abuse'.
Personal attacks (outside perhaps calling someone a bit dim to not engage brain) are entirely unhelpful. Actual threats should be reported to the appropriate authorities.
I truly hope nobody is spinning this as 'abuse'.
Personal attacks (outside perhaps calling someone a bit dim to not engage brain) are entirely unhelpful. Actual threats should be reported to the appropriate authorities.
Hi
I have no idea how she was invited. As I said, I am just a delegate who registered for the conference just like many hundred others. I have no inside knowledge of how the conference was organised. I am not connected to BRS in any official way. And thanks for the links above for opposing views as to that presented in the conference.
I have no idea how she was invited. As I said, I am just a delegate who registered for the conference just like many hundred others. I have no inside knowledge of how the conference was organised. I am not connected to BRS in any official way. And thanks for the links above for opposing views as to that presented in the conference.