Better Science through Better Data 25th October 2017 - Esther Crawley!

[Trish]

She showed a message she had received, presumably by post that was a cut and paste job one letter at a time, old fashioned poison pen letter style. I could't read the words on my screen, so I don't know what it said. Apart from that it was all hints and innuendos. One (planted?) questioner made the parallel with animal rights activists firebombing private home of researchers. She left that hanging, didn't admit she'd never had anything like that, but the idea was there...

She also talked about petitions trying to stop her research and showed a screenshot of one. She characterised it as anti science and rubbished the idea that they were accusing her of pushing patients to exercise, claiming 'we actually tell them to cut back exercise'. That's the same line Phil Hammond used in the Jen Brea interview. They carefully omit to mention that once they have cut back they are told to build up again. Such lies...

I've had a go at responding on twitter.

 

[Cheshire]

She showed a message she had received, presumably by post that was a cut and paste job one letter at a time, old fashioned poison pen letter style. I could't read the words on my screen, so I don't know what it said.

I took a (very small) screenshot, but it's difficult to read. Looks like it comes from a 1950's detective movie...

 

[Adrian]

OK, so I sat through the whole thing. She insists she as an open data policy with bona fide researchers from other universities, but goes on and on about how worried she is about FOI release of data because children could be identified, and data can't be fully anonymised and they didn't consent to this.

If individuals could be identified then it would be PII and the FoI act wouldn't apply. In the PACE case they tried to argue that people could be identified but the tribunal didn't accept their argument.

She also says she can't use actigraphy because wearing the actometer would identify kids as part of the study and they would be bullied.

They are already identified as having ME - its obvious. These days fitbits are popular (ok don't know with kids). But the answer is if you can't make the right measurements don't to the trial. There is no point of doing bad measurements as at best they have no information content but at worse measurements will mislead.

She mentioned the PACE FOI tribunal and repeated several times that she had a copy of it in her bag if anyone wanted to see it, hinting that it was a bad thing without being explicit about why.

I think those worried about privacy should read it especially the trashing of Ross Anderson by the tribunal.

 

[Cheshire]

Very interesting tweets and answers, from some open data proponents who seem happy to have the other side of the story:

 

[chrisb]

That message seems rather generic. One might suspect her of many things, but having balls to cut off is not one of them.

Did she say whether this message had been handed to the police with the envelope in which it was delivered?

Could have been sent by anyone to anyone.

 

[Adrian]

She left that hanging, didn't admit she'd never had anything like that

Having encountered Crawley as a doctor I wouldn't be surprised if she had threats. Its hard not to get very emotional when you feel your child is being badly treated and the authorities won't do anything.

 

[Trish]

Very interesting tweets and answers, from some open data proponents who seem happy to have the other side of the story:

Yes, he did seem willing to listen to the other side, so I added a couple of tweets to the conversation, as did many others.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Another institution joins in with bullshit laundering.

Do any of them holding these 'talks' ever vet who they are hosting? Not even a 2 min google search?

@Trish gets my intrepid adventurer of the day award

 

[Cheshire]

I took a (very small) screenshot, but it's difficult to read. Looks like it comes from a 1950's detective movie...
View attachment 142

 

[chrisb]

I'm afraid I am going to be pedantic (because that's what I am).

The use of the word inferred in Andy Hugh's tweet is significant. Did he use the word appropriately, or did he mean implied? Have people misinterpreted what was said or did she deliberately create a false impression?

I did not see the "lecture" and do not know in what context the "letter" was used.

 

[BurnA]

The use of the word inferred in Andy Hugh's tweet is significant. Did he use the word appropriately, or did he mean implied?

The beauty of the word infer is that it can mean imply as well.

 

[Trish]

I'm afraid I am going to be pedantic (because that's what I am).

The use of the word inferred in Andy Hugh's tweet is significant. Did he use the word appropriately, or did he mean implied? Have people misinterpreted what was said or did she deliberately create a false impression?

I did not see the "lecture" and do not know in what context the "letter" was used.

As I remember it, she neither inferred nor implied that she had received this letter. She stated it directly as fact that she had. She even joked a couple of times to the fact that it refers to her 'balls' and that she doesn't have any of the sort they meant.

So I'd say, if the tweeted copy from the Sunday Times magazine is real, then she is either lying, or she received a copy cut from the magazine and is suggesting it was composed specifically for her.

 

[chrisb]

The beauty of the word infer is that it can mean imply as well.

Under the new rules I really ought to report that post as a deliberate attempt to wind me up.

 

[chrisb]

As I remember it, she neither inferred nor implied that she had received this letter. She stated it directly as fact that she had. She even joked a couple of times to the fact that it refers to her 'balls' and that she doesn't have any of the sort they meant.

This is becoming potentially very serious for her. It would seem to give DT ammunition which a university cannot reasonably ignore.

 

[Cheshire]

She said:

This is quite an astonishing email. I had a few of these actually. This is from the front page of the Sunday Times, I have permission to publish this. And I have to laugh, because actually I don’t have balls, well not the type of balls that they were talking about. “Time is running out, pray to God for forgiveness.” Nice.

 

[chrisb]

Thanks for that transcription @Cheshire . It is very useful

This is complex. She does not expressly state that this message was sent to her. She does expressly state that the original was ever in her possession.

She states that the image used by the Sunday Times was an email of a type of which she has received a few. She does not state that this one was received by her.

However she specifically links herself to particular words in the message -("because I don't have balls" etc)-in such a way as to deliberately give the impression that the message was created for, and originally sent to, her.

One could argue that the natural implication of those words, taken as a whole, is that the message was sent to her. If it was sent to someone else, what possible reason could there be for finding her own lack of balls amusing in the manner described?

We seem to be in the territory of "a half truth is a whole lie".

 

[BurnA]

Under the new rules I really ought to report that post as a deliberate attempt to wind me up.

Please dont blame me, not my fault the English language is messed up!

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/infer

 

[Trish]

I've just googled Sunday Times May 5th 2013

There is a long article about Simon Wessely and the 'abuse' he purportedly suffered. It includes a section about Crawley in which she describes a year of emails and phone calls and contacting the police, related to the setting up of the Smile trial.

Michael Hanlon
May 5 2013, The Sunday Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...sted-that-me-was-a-mental-illness-t250dr25xg5

The online article includes this image:

 

[chrisb]

We may have missed the greatest irony in this, or at least, I had.

The title of the lectures was "Better Science through Better Data". And to illustrate the theme we have an image which may, or may not, be a representation of an email received by her, or by someone else. Or possibly it is a newspaper mock-up of words spoken in a telephone conversation to her, or to someone else. Somehow she omitted to make clear which.

It would certainly make more sense if the message in the image which she used was directed at Wessely.

Given the nature of the lecture and the audience one might have expected that a factual description should have been sufficient. These sub Tabloid ploys are not good.

 

[Trish]

Her whole lecture was almost content free. It was a mix of

I'm a wonderful doctor who listens to patients who all love my treatments and I do the research they beg me to do. With a bit about doing the Smile trial and how she'd done it because patients wanted it.
And
I'm the victim of appalling attacks and harassment by antiscience activists who want to stop research into ME and are driving researchers away from the field and I'm a hero for sticking with it for the sake of my patients (who by the way love me, did I tell you that). All innuendo and suggestion, no evidence apart from that newspaper clipping.

She portrayed herself as someone desperate to share data but held back by her ethical stance of not leaving patients and their families vulnerable to identification. She pretended to be there looking for answers rather than providing them, because she is sooooo supportive of open science.

Made me feel sick.