SMILE trial data to be released

Wonderful news, @JohnTheJack !

 

Daaamn, there are some good face slaps in there. This in combination with the Mathees case really makes them an unreliable bunch in future legal proceedings. Justifiably so, but it's good to see it written down.

Fun fact: it's not a good idea to attempt to mislead a tribunal by making bad faith arguments.

 

Interesting. Crawley claimed to have been motivated to do the trial because soooo many parents had asked her about it. Totally real, organic and unexpected demand. And then she was tooootally surprised by the positive results. Genuine surprise. Such real, much sincerity.

I guess cherry-picking can become a habit. There definitely is strong demand for something if you just ignore everyone who does not demand it and especially if you ignore those who reject it entirely.

 

Wonderful news, it made me SMILE.

Thanks for your excellent work @JohnTheJack !

 

I think more of concern is when she went on to say
“If the Lightning Process is dangerous, as they say, we need to find out."
so they hand the kids over to therapists with unrecognised qualifications, performing an unknown therapy without supervision.
How that passed the ethics committee by is unbelievable.

 

Since she swapped primary and secondary outcomes midway through, it is hard to see how she could have been surprised by the results.

 

I forget where I read it, but didn't Crawley also say of a Lightening Process practioner involved in the study that she (Crawley) had worked with her (the practioner) over a number of years. Doesn't this potentionally contradict her (Crawley's) claims that she had no expectations in relation to the Lightening Process.

 

Wow this is a really big deal! Thanks so much for persevering with this @JohnTheJack. Brilliant stuff

 

Poor dears, they know no other way.

 

How much of the data are you getting @JohnTheJack? Is it enough for a good thorough reanalysis?

 

As a parent of a child thank you sincerely, anything that Ester Crawley was involved in needs to scrutinised , so many children are harmed daily, have no quality of life and are abused and dismissed because of her awful trials. This has made my day.

 

Wasn't it Parker himself? I vaguely remember something like that as well but it's fuzzy.

 

Crawley may have had links with Parker but I have no recollection of having read about this.

My memory was of Crawley talking about a practioner involved in the SMILE trial. She was justifying her confidence in subjecting the children to the Lightening Process because she knew professionally this practioner and had worked with her over several years. It sounds as if it would have been in a talk or a newspaper interview rather than the paper itself. However it struck me as inconsistent with her claims to have no prior expectations about the outcome of the study.

 

Congratulations @JohnTheJack this is quite the victory.
I cannot help myself but think about those who are on the other side of this decision likely angry and terrified about having to give out their data. May science prevail.