Tuller / Trial By Error: My One-Sided Correspondence with Professor Crawley

Cheshire

Cheshire

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
After receiving the letter [Ms. Paterson's], I decided it would be a good idea to review all my blog posts, as well as the various e-mails I had sent to Professor Crawley seeking her response to my concerns. My blog posts are available for anyone to read; I stand by all of them. As for my e-mails, I thought it would be a useful exercise in transparency and a helpful addition to the discussion to publish my entire correspondence with Professor Crawley so that others can adequately assess my “actions and behaviour.” (“Correspondence” implies an actual exchange, so the word is really a misnomer here. No matter how many times I tried to solicit Professor Crawley’s comments and explanations, she never replied.)
Click to expand...

http://www.virology.ws/2017/12/04/trial-by-error-my-one-sided-correspondence-with-professor-crawley/
 
There is just one point which I would question, and it concerns the use of the term "Muppets" in the Devon conference. I know that I was in a minority of one on the subject but I felt that this was not a joking reference to children suffering from MUPS. I interpreted as a slightly self deprecatory and ironic reference to the doctors who deal with the children suffering from "MUPS".

The joke may have been in poor taste and ill-advised due to the sensitivity of the subject, but it seems best not to exaggerate the intent.
 
Perhaps Ms. Paterson and Professor Crawley are unfamiliar with the wide range of verbal strategies available to experienced practitioners of the English language. If so, I suggest they read Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal to acquaint themselves with the great British tradition of satire.
Click to expand...
Lovely.

Miss Piggy and her various puppet-friends
Click to expand...
I hope Esther doesn't, by some tortuous misinterpretation, claim that DT could have been referring to her with that comment.
 
The problem with the MUPPETS title of the conference was not the intent but the crass insensitivity of the idiots who thought it was funny and chose to use it as the title. When confronted they claimed they were calling themselves muppets, but that's not how it came across. They did change it on the day, but the damage was done.

The point David was making, I think validly, was that EC agreed to give the keynote address at a conference titled 'A day with the Muppets' (if I remember it correctly). A sensitive paediatrician would have objected and insisted they change it before she agreed to be their keynote speaker. And incidentally, some of us followed the talks on twitter until her talk was due to start, when there was complete twitter silence, presumably at her insistence.

But getting back to the main substance of David Tuller's latest blog. It's good that he's put on public record his attempts to correspond with EC, and her complete silence in response. Her silence demonstrates her contempt for academic discourse when invited by another academic to comment on his concerns about her research. If her work was defensible, she should have been eager to put the public record straight. But there is no scientific defence for her shoddy work.
 
chrisb said:
There is just one point which I would question, and it concerns the use of the term "Muppets" in the Devon conference. I know that I was in a minority of one on the subject but I felt that this was not a joking reference to children suffering from MUPS. I interpreted as a slightly self deprecatory and ironic reference to the doctors who deal with the children suffering from "MUPS".

The joke may have been in poor taste and ill-advised due to the sensitivity of the subject, but it seems best not to exaggerate the intent.
Click to expand...

We don't know the intent, but even if we assume the best intent, it was, as you say, ill advised and insensitive. I think what David Tuller emailed Crawley on this subject was fair in this light:

Of course, use of the term “muppets” was probably not the best idea, whoever thought of it.
Click to expand...
 
From David Tuller's blog :
I was flabbergasted when I first saw the slide in which she indicated that my post about FITNET-NHS was a “libellous” blog—especially since she had rejected my invitation to respond and outline any issues she had.
Click to expand...

The slide :



Notice that in the replies to the slide someone called joe kane ( @joe90kane ) has commented :

Why hasn't Esther won the Sense About Science John Maddox prize for science bravery? BTW I see Fiona Fox got an OBE for services to science.
Click to expand...

That was posted on Apr 28 this year. I'm not suggesting that joe kane approved of the idea. I suspect he might be horrified about being so prescient!

Edit : Of course, I'm wrong - she didn't win the prize, she got a "commendation". Doh!
 
Last edited:
Inara said:
What's this "Muppets" thing?
Click to expand...

One of the many names given to patients with symptoms that doctors have trouble diagnosing is Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), also called Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS), or Medically unexplained physical and psychological symptoms (MUPPS).

A group of doctors were running a day conference on MUPPS and had the crazy idea of calling it 'A day with the Muppets'. They probably thought this was hilarious. Patients heard about it and objected, but too late to change their publicity.

As has been explained, in the UK calling someone a muppet is an insult.
 
LOL at:

And good luck with future grant applications!–
Click to expand...

I was surprised that there weren't any more aggressive e-mails in there tbh, especially after Crawley's 'libellous blogs' accusation. Good not to give them any ammo to use against us, but still some impressive restraint there!

The only thing I thought could be a problem is if people did not realise that generally journalists would feel a responsibility to reach out for comment from those they're writing about, it could seem like a lot of unanswered e-mails. I'd have hoped that even the most sensitive of genteel UK researchers would not think that was a problem though. If someone starts publicly accusing you of libel, it seems entirely fair to push for an explanation.
 
I am away until Thursday the 6th of April and there will therefore be a delay in answering your emails.
Click to expand...
Typical ambiguous statement. She knows any normal person inevitably interprets it the way she wants them to, but her own interpretation is subtly different ...
I am away until Thursday the 6th of April. There will be a delay in answering your emails.
Click to expand...
The first bit is just a red herring.
 
Barry said:
Typical ambiguous statement. She knows any normal person inevitably interprets it the way she wants them to, but her own interpretation is subtly different ...

The first bit is just a red herring.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a Simpsons quote:
Because we care about the environment a percentage of our newsprint is made from recycled paper
What percent is that?
Zero. What, zero is a percent o_O
 
I don't know if this is useful or if it's the right thread to post in as there are a few about Crawley. I think someone was asking about how she can say the things that she does in her presentations. I found this article which critiques an interview that she had and the information in it. It is all still relevant so attaching in here in case it's or use. If not and I need to remove or put it somewhere else please let me know.
 

Attachments

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