David Tuller: Trial By Error: Professor Crawley’s Bogus BuzzFeed Claims - 17th January 2018

Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Just saw this appear as I was about to go to bed, so haven't read it yet, but expect it will be great and of interest to everyone here.

Tom Chivers’ terrific article on the Lightning Process and Professor Esther Crawley’s SMILE trial in the Archives of Disease in Childhood has received a lot of attention and comment. I wanted to respond to the short sections in which Professor Crawley seeks to justify her methodological choices
Click to expand...

http://www.virology.ws/2018/01/17/trial-by-error-professor-crawleys-bogus-buzzfeed-claims/
 
Belter

DT is like a terrier digging stuff up and bringing it to us as a present. In this case some gems from JE that he’s had temporarily buried.

I like the BPS ideological brigades name harking back to their supposed left wing supposed activism.
 
I know this isn't 'new news' in the sense Tuller and Chivers had already partly explored and published these issues elsewhere, but the way in which Tuller presents this argument of Crawley's ineptitude and inability to actually keep sch-tum about her dubious research practices is very neat indeed. Like it. :thumbup:
 
Lilpink said:
I know this isn't 'new news' in the sense Tuller and Chivers had already partly explored and published these issues elsewhere, but the way in which Tuller presents this argument of Crawley's ineptitude and inability to actually keep sch-tum about her dubious research practices is very neat indeed. Like it. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I agree, he subscribes to no bothsiderism, only the facts and common sense.
 
Is it just me, or is Tuller a bit fulsome in his praise for the Chiver piece? LP is loopy, and the article about LP explained what it was, so in that way it was great and much better then almost any other piece about SMILE, but that was about it.

I thought this was a bit generous to say this claim from Crawley was in any way true!:

Professor Crawley also states that the change in the primary outcome measure was made before results were collected. This is true. But it is also true that the change was made after results were collected. Patients in the feasibility trial were recruited starting in September 2010, meaning the first 12-month results would have been in September 2011.

The feasibility study recruited participants through mid-2012. The ethics committee approved both the extension of the feasibility trial into the full trial and the swapping of the outcome measures after that. Then the remaining participants in the full sample were recruited. That means that results were collected both before and after the primary measure change was made. Professor Crawley’s statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it is also incomplete and ambiguous and therefore highly misleading.
Click to expand...

Probably best to be a bit generous though, and then present the evidence so readers can see the problems for themselves. You can't change primary outcomes midway through collecting a trial's results, and then say you changed the primary outcome before results were collected! In this case, those results were part of a feasibility stufy where results were being examined as they came in!! More exclamation marks!!!
 
If a teenager said I shouldnt take school records of absence as useful and should rely on what they told me about how often they attended school, I would be highly suspicious. How many parents trust that their children don't tell fibs?!
Example - Did you do all of your homework? Yes, Can i go and play computer games now...

Would any reputable scientist really take the words of teenagers as basis for results suitable for reporting to the global medical community over actual tangible records from an authority. Seriously!! Especially when they say to believe them rather than the school - that would immediately ring alarm bells for me.

Not saying they are lying maliciously but what if it is another example of people wanting to seem to be improving so that they might get access to more treatment - or maybe so that they get to stop having to undergo ridiculous treatment?
 
Sbag said:
If a teenager said I shouldnt take school records of absence as useful and should rely on what they told me about how often they attended school, I would be highly suspicious. How many parents trust that their children don't tell fibs?!
Example - Did you do all of your homework? Yes, Can i go and play computer games now...

Would any reputable scientist really take the words of teenagers as basis for results suitable for reporting to the global medical community over actual tangible records from an authority. Seriously!! Especially when they say to believe them rather than the school - that would immediately ring alarm bells for me.

Not saying they are lying maliciously but what if it is another example of people wanting to seem to be improving so that they might get access to more treatment - or maybe so that they get to stop having to undergo ridiculous treatment?
Click to expand...
Ah - this is patient engagement.
Ticky box
 
Sbag said:
If a teenager said I shouldnt take school records of absence as useful and should rely on what they told me about how often they attended school, I would be highly suspicious. How many parents trust that their children don't tell fibs?!
Example - Did you do all of your homework? Yes, Can i go and play computer games now...
Click to expand...
She seems to believe that lying leads to a greater good, so if someone is lying to her and she benefits from it it absolves her of responsibility (in her mind).
Reminds me of an old expression, all spirits are enslaved that serve things evil.
 
Last edited:
Sbag said:
If a teenager said I shouldnt take school records of absence as useful and should rely on what they told me about how often they attended school, I would be highly suspicious. How many parents trust that their children don't tell fibs?!
Example - Did you do all of your homework? Yes, Can i go and play computer games now...
Click to expand...
That is a very good point.

I remember from a lecture by prof. Sommerfelt (neurologist and paediatrician with long experience on children and adolescents with ME) saying that in a consultation, when he asks the child/teenager how often he/she has been to school lately, the patient often gives a higher account than the parents.

Prof. Sommerfelt said further that when the everyday-life is so uneventful, it can actually be quite hard to remember things accurately as school-attendance. They don't like to remember and think about all the days spent at home, rather the time spent at school. In a way it is a form of cognitive therapy, prof. Sommerfelt continued. They usually don't need to be offered it, because they are already doing it.
 
I'm stunned, actually, that this isn't already a scandal and EC a laughingstock among her peers.

Can you imagine anyone saying about their trial that they amended the parameters halfway through because the participants didn't like them? I'm guessing the only reason this ridiculousness has somehow passed through all filters is simply because the participants were children, and she's presenting the change as some sort of compassion for her study subjects.

They tried on the same lie with actometers in PACE. The kids "objected" to wearing fitbits so they binned that dataset.
 
Esther12 said:
I thought this was a bit generous to say this claim from Crawley was in any way true!:
Click to expand...

Professor Crawley also states that the change in the primary outcome measure was made before results were collected. This is true. But it is also true that the change was made after results were collected.

Isn't he just doing what I did on some thread before - saying 'This is true (technically); but it is also untrue' - pointing out that 'results' does not mean all the results.
 
Esther12 said:
I thought this was a bit generous to say this claim from Crawley was in any way true!:
Click to expand...
Professor Crawley also states that the change in the primary outcome measure was made before results were collected. This is true.
Click to expand...
Professor Crawley’s statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it is also incomplete and ambiguous and therefore highly misleading.
Click to expand...
No, DT is 100% right to expose this much used technique of ECs. I have met plenty of deeply manipulative people, and this is a standard trait. They state a partial truth, knowing that how they present it people will infer untruths from it. But they can and do honestly claim they never spoke an untruth, and think that's OK, and often carry their believers along with them.

DT very nicely exposes how she states her partial truth, but then he clarifies the rest of the truth that she o-so-conveniently overlooked to mention. She seems completely incapable of avoiding doing it.

DT doing this means people can see what she does, and really appreciate that carefully engineered partial truths are way out of line.

I've been going on about this for ages now.
 
Last edited:
Allele said:
I'm stunned, actually, that this isn't already a scandal and EC a laughingstock among her peers.

Can you imagine anyone saying about their trial that they amended the parameters halfway through because the participants didn't like them?
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think she must be losing the plot to say something as farcical as that. I mean, if ever a statement clarifies a less than tenuous grasp of methodology, that has to be it; you don't need to be a scientist to grasp that. I almost feel sorry for her, she is digging such a deep hole for herself. I would guess some of her BPS confederates might be quietly disowning her.
 
Alvin said:
I wouldn't, she should be prosecuted for the harm she has caused
Click to expand...
Don't worry, it was only a brief aberration :).
Alvin said:
That would be good news, but somehow i don't think we have it that good
Click to expand...
I think self preservation might start to kick in with them, if they realise she is going down the plughole and don't want to get sucked down with her. For these folks self preservation will trump loyalty I think.
 
Barry said:
Don't worry, it was only a brief aberration :).
Click to expand...
Cognitive dysfunction, right? :laugh:
I think self preservation might start to kick in with them, if they realise she is going down the plughole and don't want to get sucked down with her. For these folks self preservation will trump loyalty I think.
Click to expand...
I don't think they intend to give up, i suspect they will dig their heels in harder because they are married to their ridiculous beliefs. Once we have a disease mechanism science will stop believing them but i would be surprised if anything else will be enough.
 
Barry said:
No, DT is 100% right to expose this much used technique of ECs. I have met plenty of deeply manipulative people, and this is a standard trait. They state a partial truth, knowing that how they present it people will infer untruths from it. But they can and do honestly claim they never spoke an untruth, and think that's OK, and often carry their believers along with them.
Click to expand...

This is important. It is one of the main ways propaganda works. The audience is led to a single conclusion, typically without it actually being stated, and left to make the final logical step for themselves, while being flattered along the way that they are making an objective independent assessment of the technical and ethical aspects of the 'argument' being presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom