Open letter to TEDxBristol regarding Esther Crawley's presentation on 2 November 2017

They (CBT/GET researchers) probably are aware of the harm they are doing, at least to the extent they should be cautious. They are possibly in denial, or convinced they can make it work if only ... , or are doing it for their own agendas. If they think they can make it work and think their studies support that then they lack an adequate grasp of scientific methodology.

There is a notion in psychiatry and medicine of the benevolent lie. You tell patients what you think will help, even if its untrue.

The evidence about physiological decline from excessive activity is very strong. They never discuss this. Instead they make assertions that there is no evidence of harm. This is despite that under the conditions of the CBT/GET studies almost make it sure they will not find the specific harms found in physiological ME research. Is this a coincidence? Do they think this is good scientific practice? I would not be surprised if one of them said somewhere that if those claiming harms want to show it they can run their own study. The problem with that is the exercise physiologists are so convinced of harm they would consider such a study unethical. If I recall correctly someone from Workwell said something to that effect.

Part of the deception, and I do not rule out the first group they are deceiving is themselves, is the notion than idiopathic chronic fatigue is ME, even though many with ME do not even have chronic fatigue, but energy deficit or decline after activity.
 
Sly Saint said:
Could someone tweet the link to Voices from the Shadows..............

http://voicesfromtheshadowsfilm.co.uk/

maybe if they see the reality of the harm they are helping to perpetuate?
Click to expand...

I watched that video, and it made me so unbelievably angry. These people (psychiatrists, social workers, doctors, the law, e.g. judges, police...) behave abominably; they must be without feelings not to feel ashamed of themselves; I don't care if the law today says they acted legally, in my eyes these are cruel criminal acts by cruel creatures without any empathy. Justice wants an answer, justice wants reparation.

Any person who takes part in torturing and mistreating people, in particular helpless, vulnerable people like e.g. sick persons with ME or children, acts in a criminal manner.

It's not the mother (it's always the mother, right?) or childhood...it's a trauma like being taken from home and forced into an environment that's poisonous, escpecially when you're a child. This will take so long to heal, too.

(Please delete the post if it breaches any rules. But I had to say this.)
 
TEDxBristol@TEDxBristol

In her #TEDxBristol talk, Esther Crawley discusses the difficult choices that many medical pioneers have to make to do ‘what is right, not what is easy’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ORJdyR6_E …

3:05 PM - Dec 31, 2017
Click to expand...

This is why I think its pointless engaging in a debate as to whether Crawleys video is damaging the TEDx Brand.

Exactly who verifies whether someone is a medical pioneer or not inside TED headquarters before that person gives such a speech. No one I bet. I would wager TED is a bunch of 20 somethings executives sitting around using words like inspirational, leaders, idea shower, helicopter view etc etc.

Their aim is to fill up as many rosters as possible to make money and to be honest there's not that many interesting and exceptional people around.

TED is just the TV programme the apprentice, with those terrible desperate, valueless, young idiots, the absolute worst pile of shit one can cream off the whole of youth, the rest of youth on the whole don't want the things that these climbers and egotists want.

TED is just corporate ignoramuses with student loans to pay off who suddenly don't have to live in shared housing despising their housemates and eating pot noodle and have suddenly been told that they are the future and they fucking well believe it. They accept this because for the first time in their lives they have an amount of independence moved into better housing and have a little disposable income.

What they don't get yet is that they are the disposable ones who will be replaced with another 25 year old idiot once they show any amount of disillusion in the brand.

Some will stay on and never grow up and they seek out others who are the same to network with.

Yes there will be some good and genuine talks but on the whole the rest will be a pile of shit.

That's where people like Crawley come in, the Peter Pans of bullshit corporatism. Brands are lies on the whole they are not based on value truths.

TED is Crawley, Crawley is TED. That's why its pointless in my opinion trying to convince TED someone like Crawley is "damaging their brand".

She is their brand. She stands up and talks she doesnt debate she doesnt back up her claims. THATS EXACTLY WHAT A TED TALK IS!!

It really wouldn't surprise me if you could buy a TED talk, if not for money definately for favours.

TED is just wikipedia on a stage.
 
TedxBristol. Is anyone there actually responsible for anything?

https://www.tedxbristol.com/team

looks to me like no one has overall responsibility for anything at tedxbristol. Just goes to show what an almighty cock up a bunch of ambitious but critically clueless 'creatives' can make.

What is so shocking is not only their faliure to evaluate their 'Dare to disrupt' speakers, but their authoritarian censorship of critique, on their facebook page, on the youtube post of Prof Crawleys talk, on twitter, and their refusal to respond to anything!

Do tedxbristol not realise that Esther Crawleys talk has attracted international criticism? Is it the case that the named people at tedxbristol have found themselves way out of their depth?

Is tedxbristol a registered company? Who on earth is ultimately responsible? Because it looks very much like a bunch of trendy 'creatives' who have actually created havoc, and are burying their heads in the sand and resorting to extremes of censorship.

Which does NOT look good for the Ted Brand.
 
Last edited:
Dana Bopp 'Team leader and Speaker Liason' at TedxBristol, prides herself on her "coolness credibility".
https://www.tedxbristol.com/team

Really people, "coolness" was done and dusted by the '70s.

These TedxBristol people are bandwagon jumpers, who think they are being 'edgy', but, like, decades after what they are doing was actually groundbreaking. Been there done that, as have so many of us, decades before it all became mainstream. Marketing mainstream as 'edgy' seems to be a growth industry.

Reading their bios and self promotions is proving increasingly depressing. Especially as its becoming clear that they are, and will remain, Oblivious to the tsunami caused by their gullible acceptance of Esther Crawley as a suitable speaker. Dana Bopp was definitely involved in 'speaker selection' for Tedxbristol 'Dare to disrupt'.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the more we respond to her TED talk, the more she and they get to say "See? I was right! I was right! See the crazy loons coming out of the woodwork like I said they would? Pay no attention to the content of their harping, they're lunatics with an agenda. We're such brave pioneers, aren't we? <clink>"

And they just have a good laugh and book the next gig.
 
Allele said:
The problem is the more we respond to her TED talk, the more she and they get to say "See? I was right! I was right! See the crazy loons coming out of the woodwork like I said they would? Pay no attention to the content of their harping, they're lunatics with an agenda. We're such brave pioneers, aren't we? <clink>"

And they just have a good laugh and book the next gig.
Click to expand...

How to effectively oppose those who arguing opposition is a sign people are dangerous and unreasonable? Cautiously?
 
alex3619 said:
Impeccably. Stick to provable facts. Those are damning enough given the gravity of the situation. Don't demonize, demonstrate.
Click to expand...
from this page: https://www.ted.com/participate/organize-a-local-tedx-event/before-you-start/tedx-rules

"Content: If talks break the Content Guidelines, we reserve the right to insist on their removal from TEDx branded distribution outlets, and license renewal is unlikely."

The section of this "Guideline 4: Only good science" may be worth looking at.

"Avoid pseudoscience. TED and TEDx are platforms for showcasing and explaining genuine advances in science, and it's important we retain the respect of the scientific community. Speakers should avoid the misuse of scientific language to make unsubstantiated claims.
    • No talks with an inflammatory political or religious agenda, nor for polarizing “us vs them” language. We seek to build consensus and provide outside-the-box thinking, not to revisit familiar, unresolvable disputes on these topics."
 
MeSci said:
"Avoid pseudoscience. TED and TEDx are platforms for showcasing and explaining genuine advances in science, and it's important we retain the respect of the scientific community. Speakers should avoid the misuse of scientific language to make unsubstantiated claims.
    • No talks with an inflammatory political or religious agenda, nor for polarizing “us vs them” language. We seek to build consensus and provide outside-the-box thinking, not to revisit familiar, unresolvable disputes on these topics."
Click to expand...
Organizations only loosely follow their own rules unless there are financial consequences. Twitter being a good example.
 
Nancy Blackett said:
Dana Bopp 'Team leader and Speaker Liason' at TedxBristol, prides herself on her "coolness credibility".
https://www.tedxbristol.com/team
Click to expand...

I dare to disrupt because ...
I choose to become a single mom in my late 30's. I've disrupted the idea that the "traditional" way of building a family is the only successful approach.
Click to expand...

WTF? Is that all she's got?

I wonder if these people view any criticism of anything as "not cool".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom