SMILE trial data to be released

However, the University asked itself the wrong question when conducting its internal review
Click to expand...
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.

Whether sharing of information in this way satisfies any legitimate public interest in it, as the University suggests in paragraph 22 of its Response, misses the point.
Click to expand...
D6l8fu1.gif
 
Last edited:
Indeed, Prof Crawley is quoted as saying in the press release that ‘[m]any children and families in our service did not want to have LP...’.
Click to expand...

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.
 
rvallee said:
Crawley claimed to have been motivated to do the trial because soooo many parents had asked her about it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rvallee said:
I have no idea how that's supposed to work. Then what? Plenty of participants to some of those trials have spoken out. That's the end of it. They speak out, we appreciate the contribution to the conversation and add it to the pile of evidence. That's what happens when participants in those trials are identified. They're anecdotes, not much more can be done, the trial data is much more useful.

It's a really bad idea to make strawman arguments like that. It works within the circlejerk, but it makes them look very unprofessional to independent observers. They may as well have been arguing that alien invasion was a likely consequence of releasing the data for all that that argument was grounded in reality.
Click to expand...

It's the legal test: can a resourceful, motivated person identify someone from the data released.
 
rvallee said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Barry said:
How much of the data are you getting @JohnTheJack? Is it enough for a good thorough reanalysis?
Click to expand...

It should be enough:

Please provide the following patient-level data at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year assessments, where available
1. SF-36 physical functioning scores.
2. School attendance in the previous week, collected as a percentage (10, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100%).
3. Chalder Fatigue Scale Scores.
4. Pain visual analogue scale scores.
5. HADS scores
6. SCAS scores
7. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: General Health
8. Health Resource Use Questionnaire.
 
Peter Trewhitt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it Parker himself? I vaguely remember something like that as well but it's fuzzy.
 
rvallee said:
Wasn't it Parker himself? I vaguely remember something like that as well but it's fuzzy.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom