Esther Crawley talk at TEDxBristol, Thurs 2nd Bristol - "Disrupting Your View Of ME"

ukxmrv said:
From the original Sunday Times article SW as quoted as saying "The person who telephoned him to say, "We will come and get you soon", did not leave a name or address, nor did the man who said he was going to "come and cut your balls off"

EC said "Things soon got worse for Crawley - death threats, mostly online." and

"She showed me some of the emails.

In one she is referred to as an "evil bastard".

Another reads: "To those of you who are responsible for preventing us sick ME sufferers from getting the help we need, wasting £5m on flawed bullshit and trying to discredit the real scientists who are trying to help us, you will all pay."

Is "you will pay" a threat?"

I recognize the graphic she uses as the one of the Sunday Times article in 2013. It was the front page to their magazine that day.

So, the top line about Evil Bastard(s) may be from her email with an "S" added or it could easy have come from another doctor if they reported the same thing. The 2nd line about cutting balls off came from SW according to the Sunday Times article and was from a telephone call.

The other quotes I can't find a reference to where they came from
Click to expand...
Throwing them all together is designed to make it look more serious. You will pay - could mean anything - eg when your research is debunked you will be humiliated and your career in ruins. Evil bastard is an insult not a threat.
 
Valentijn said:
The article itself (paywalled) claims that the ball-cutting threat was made to Simon Wessely via a phone call. Presumably it wasn't recorded and we just have to take his word for that. But it certainly wasn't an email sent to Esther Crawley.

The parts which do involve Crawley:

Full text of article at http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ng-article-in-sunday-times.23050/#post-352572

I think the recent FOIA request to Crawley's university covered most or all of that time frame, and no threats were reported to the university in that time.
Click to expand...


The FOI requests being circulated by Jane Colby covered the period September 2010 to January 2017.

The SMILE Trial pilot issued the press release on March 02, 2010, from which date there were mounting concerns: FOIs were being submitted by individuals and by the MEA; two orgs were issuing statements of support; the MEA and TYMES Trust were issuing joint statements of concern and press releasing their joint statements of concern; other orgs issued statements of concern; there were complaints going in to the Ethics Committees and NRES; an ASA adjudication for one of the practitioners involved in the pilot study; media coverage etc.

ME agenda site:

https://meagenda.wordpress.com/category/lightning-process-smile-study/
https://meagenda.wordpress.com/category/lightning-process-smile-study/page/2/

thru to:

https://meagenda.wordpress.com/category/lightning-process-smile-study/page/5/

These FOIs leave the 6 month period following the issuing of the SMILE Trial press release uncovered.


Don't want to appear nitpicky, but if Wessely had received a phone call using those words, that does not preclude another individual from receiving the same or similar words via email or via other communication.

"Valentijn has said:

"But it certainly wasn't an email sent to Esther Crawley."

Can this certainty be verified?
 
Dx Revision Watch said:
"But it certainly wasn't an email sent to Esther Crawley."

Can this certainty be verified?
Click to expand...
Yes, because she described the threats she did receive in the same article that published the mock-up she keeps trotting out, and the worst was "you will all pay". If the same purported threat was both phoned to Wessely and emailed to her, surely that would have been mentioned in the article.
 
Posted in another thread, on this forum, but in case some haven't seen this SMC piece already:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...ews-from-the-front-line-essays-on-the-SMC.pdf

PDF 5.27 MB

SMC

Science Media Centre

October 2, 2012

views from the front line – essays on the SMC

As part of the Centre’s 10th anniversary celebrations, a collection of essays on key moments for science and the media from the first decade of the SMC’s existence were commissioned. Written by the scientists, journalists and press officers involved, the essays paint a picture of the effect the SMC has had on UK science-media relations.

Commentaries:

Threats of persecution, Esther Crawley Report Page 16

Tom Feilden Report Page 17

Extract Page 16:

Esther Crawley:

"...It had started with emails, letters and phone calls.
Some were benign; they merely suggested I
change research projects. Some were more malevolent.
Some were threatening. I switched phone numbers,
filed the letters and the emails and talked to the police.

Then the attack became a little more co-ordinated.
There were frequent and repetitive Freedom of Information (FOI)
requests. A scan of blogs quickly showed where these
had come from..."

"This was followed swiftly by complaints to the National
Research Ethics Service and the General Medical Council.
The complaints again looked identical, were based on
defamatory allegations and were clearly part of a coordinated
attack. The allegations of affairs, money making
and conspiracy made my life seem much more interesting
than it really was (or is). The Bristol University authorities
were shocked but supportive. The allegations made my
husband laugh.

Around this time, I started to talk to the SMC about why
they were finding it hard to work with people in this field..."

"...The SMC organised a meeting so we could discuss what
to do to protect researchers. Those who had been subject
to abuse met with press officers, representatives from
the GMC and, importantly, police who had dealt with the
animal rights campaign. This transformed my view of
what had been going on. I had thought those attacking
us were “activists”; the police explained they were
“extremists”.

The tactics of using threats and abuse, and then trying
to prevent research using FOIs and reviews, had all been
seen before. We discussed whether somebody at the top
of one of the leading charities might be behind much of it,
relying on others with a lower profile to take the abusive
actions..."
 
Last edited:
Dx Revision Watch said:
Don't want to appear nitpicky, but if Wessely had received a phone call using those words, that does not preclude another individual from receiving the same or similar words via email or via other communication.
Click to expand...

This is true. We certainly don't want to fall into a trap.

At the same time there still appears to be no provable trail to who actually said it to Wessely or who sent it to Crawley by email if any of these things happened. By that I also mean that even if such an email is produced that is not proof it was sent by a person with ME or anyone connected to the ME issue.

The attempt to prove who sent it would require deeper investigation into emails addresses and IP addresses. I'm sure the SMC has the resources to prove the IP address as they have previously admitted to publicizing claimed harassment against its own advisers.

Surely all the crucial information has been kept to show to the police.

Sadly when similar claims where put to the test in the FOI tribunal certain individuals failed to provide evidence to convince the judge.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, as I've said in the other thread, it's a pity that whoever submitted the FOIs did not include the 6 month period following the release of the Bath hospital's press release.

I daresay some aren't aware that Sir Peter Spencer, CEO of Bristol based, Action for M.E., at the time of the application for ethics approval for the SMILE Trial, was (and still may be) a non-executive director of the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, NHS Foundation Trust – Dr Esther Crawley’s employer.
 
Last edited:
large donner said:
...By that I mean even if such an email is produced that is not proof it was sent by a person with ME or anyone connected to the ME issue."
Click to expand...

That holds true also for the 2007 Gresham College lecture anonymous threatening phone call debacle.

An anonymous phone call could have come from any source - from a member of a group unconnected with ME or from a mischief maker (the lecture was not about ME) and the protest outside was supported by a number of different groups (who had their names taken by the police and photos taken) and some attendees were herded into another lecture room to view the lecture on a screen rather than to watch Wessely present the lecture.

And the odd thing was, Wessely let his son and his son's school friends attend that lecture. And at the end of the lecture, he showed a slide of a pub and said that's where he would be retiring for a pint after the lecture. For someone who claims to be feel safer in Afghanistan - a very perverse thing to do.
 
I'm a bit confused. I thought I would go to Twitter and check out some of the feedback that happened on there. I went to Tedx Bristol's Twitter and their timeline is full of today's events with introductory tweet's on who the next speaker is before they go on stage and then some quotes and retweets about each talk...all except EC's talk..? I swear she was one of the first ones up but I've gone through their entire timeline and it's as if the talk never happened?
 
markiemark said:
I'm a bit confused. I thought I would go to Twitter and check out some of the feedback that happened on there. I went to Tedx Bristol's Twitter and their timeline is full of today's events with introductory tweet's on who the next speaker is before they go on stage and then some quotes and retweets about each talk...all except EC's talk..? I swear she was one of the first ones up but I've gone through their entire timeline and it's as if the talk never happened?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked, but if they have removed selected Tweets perhaps hoping to limit comments?

I do not agree with Jen Brea that Crawley should be ignored.
 
Esther12 said:
I've just seen that @JohnTheJack has posted here, so might be able to reassure you on what he was told. Thanks to John for looking into this.
Click to expand...

I hope I don't seem to be implying that @JohnTheJack is unreliable - it's simply that in order to make a strong claim (and calling anyone, let alone a public figure, is a strong claim), it's important that sources are primary ones. So whether John confirms what he was told or not, it's Gill who's the primary source.
 
markiemark said:
@Dx Revision Watch If that's true then what they're doing is doing a good job, EC is getting royally roasted on Twitter right now, including by Jen Brea lol.

I think there were tweets in the same vein made by Tedx Bristol about EC and have since been removed. I think I saw reference to them indirectly through other tweets.
Click to expand...

So Jen's now decided not to ignore Crawley?
 
Sasha said:
I hope I don't seem to be implying that @JohnTheJack is unreliable - it's simply that in order to make a strong claim (and calling anyone, let alone a public figure, is a strong claim), it's important that sources are primary ones. So whether John confirms what he was told or not, it's Gill who's the primary source.
Click to expand...

I understand wanting access to primary sources. John seems like the sensible person to ask. We all have slightly different standards for evidence, and what claims can be cited. I'd assume John would be fine with people asking around too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom