Trial By Error: The Crawley Chronicles, Continued

By David Tuller, DrPH

Update: About 20 minutes after posting this blog, I received the following communication from Ms. Paterson:

Dear Dr Tuller

Thank you for your email of 22 November.

If by a ‘cease and desist’ letter you mean a letter threatening legal action if the recipient does not stop a specified activity or behaviour, then I can confirm that the University of Bristol has not sent you or your institution such a letter.

However you will be aware that the University of Bristol has for many years enjoyed a close and valued collaborative relationship with the University of California, Berkeley, and it is my understanding that private and confidential communication has taken place at a senior level about your actions and behaviour towards staff involved with research into chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis at the University of Bristol.

Yours sincerely
Sue Paterson

I note that this message from Ms. Paterson confirms that Professor Crawley’s statement about Bristol sending me a cease and desist letter is not true. I also note that it contains no evidence or documentation that anything I have written is inaccurate or in error, and that Professor Crawley has still not taken me up on my offers to correct any mistakes and post her full comment on Virology Blog.

I have not responded to Ms. Paterson at this point. I await further developments with interest.


Bristol University has an Esther Crawley problem. A week ago, I e-mailed Sue Paterson, Bristol’s director of legal services, asking her to clarify as soon as possible whether the university had sent me a cease and desist letter. Professor Crawley made such a claim in a November 17th talk at the University of Exeter, in response to my question about why she had accused me of libel and then refused to provide evidence that anything I wrote was in error. Her statement about this issue was clear and unambiguous: “You have been so unbelievably defamatory and unprofessional that I had to get my university to send you a cease and desist letter,” she said.

As I pointed out to Ms. Paterson, I have received no such letter. Since I cannot cease and desist anything if I don’t know what I am being asked to cease and desist from, I requested that she provide me with a copy of this letter immediately. I also asked her to explain, if no such letter actually existed, why Professor Crawley would make such an untrue statement.

Ms. Paterson has not yet responded, nor has anyone else from Bristol. Whether or not the university sent me a cease and desist letter is an empirical question with only two possible answers. Determining the facts does not require an extensive investigation. Ms. Paterson presumably knows whether a letter was sent, since it seems likely that it would have come from her department. While my understanding is that Bristol has 20 working days to respond to such a letter, I fail to see why it should take this long, especially given the urgency and seriousness of the matter.

So what to make of Bristol’s extended silence? I could be mistaken, but until informed otherwise I am taking Ms. Paterson’s non-response as confirmation that no letter was sent. My presumption—and again, I could be wrong—is that Bristol’s legal department needs more time to strategize about how to “disappear” this public relations disaster created by Professor Crawley, or at least how to mitigate the inevitable fall-out.

In fact, it seems to me that Professor Crawley doesn’t really need my “libellous” help in causing damage to her reputation. She appears to be doing a pretty decent job of that on her own. She has now accused me three times in academic settings of being libelous or defamatory. She has declined to take advantage of my repeated offers, conveyed via e-mail, to post her full response to my concerns on Virology Blog, as well as to correct any mistakes she can document. Her apparent conviction that a libel accusation is a valid substitute for a coherent defense of her questionable methodological and ethical choices is perplexing and obviously misguided.

Professor Crawley also raised the specter of consulting with “the police,” implying that I am engaged in dangerous and threatening activities. As Ms. Paterson undoubtedly knows, strongly worded opinions and interpretations, based on facts and related to a matter of significant public interest, are not currently illegal in the U.K. Nor is asking a question at a public event. My work does not pose a danger or threat to Professor Crawley’s person or physical safety. For her to suggest otherwise is ridiculous and offensive.

Her actions also seem to demonstrate once again that she is either unwilling or unable to provide adequate and credible responses to the serious criticisms I and others have raised. Instead, she slams patients as “vexatious” for filing freedom of information requests and attacks me as “libellous” and “defamatory” for posing tough questions.

Someone really needs to stage an intervention.


And on a related front…On November 3rd, the magazine New Scientist published an article about an important new study from Newcastle University. The study, called “Cellular bioenergetics is impaired in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome,” reported that patients suffer from mitochondrial dysfunctions that limit their ability to generate energy.

The story included the following enthusiastic quote from Professor Stephen Holgate, a well-known expert in immunopharmacology from the University of Southampton: “These exciting results confirm what others have postulated but not been able to prove, namely that cells of patients with CFS are easily metabolically exhausted when put under any form of stress…In many ways, this is how patients describe their whole-body experience with CFS.”

In addition to his position at Southampton, Professor Holgate is the chair of the CFS/ME Research Collaborative. In that capacity, he works closely with Professor Crawley, who serves as the organization’s deputy chair. He has proven himself to be a staunch supporter of her research. At the Science Media Centre’s press conference last year promoting the launch of FITNET-NHS, Professor Crawley’s trial of online cognitive behavior therapy for kids, Professor Holgate declared it to be “high-quality research.” In my post about FITNET-NHS, I criticized Professor Holgate’s willingness to offer unalloyed praise for this very problematic study.

Professor Crawley’s research on ME/CFS has largely focused on treating kids with cognitive behavior therapy and graded exercise therapy. (That is, until she decided to investigate the cult-like Lightning Process—more next week on that misbegotten mess of a study.) As described in the discredited PACE trial, both of these rehabilitative treatments are grounded in the hypothesis that patients are suffering from severe deconditioning but not from any underlying organic disease. The illness is presumed to be “reversible” with these therapies.

Professor Crawley has famously declared that PACE is a “great, great” trial—despite the abundant evidence to the contrary. She has misrepresented the reanalyses of the PACE trial data, which authoritatively proved that the investigators reported wildly inflated results by significantly weakening their outcome measures. With regards to FITNET-NHS, Professor Crawley has stated that two-thirds of the children in the online CBT arm of a similar Dutch study recovered after six months—even though that earlier study was also riddled with methodological flaws that completely undermine that finding.

Such claims pose an interesting dilemma for Professor Holgate. If New Scientist quoted him correctly and he genuinely believes the Newcastle study convincingly showed that “cells of patients with CFS are easily metabolically exhausted when put under any form of stress,” is he still convinced that online CBT is an appropriate intervention and that FITNET-NHS represents “high-quality research”? What does Professor Holgate now think about graded exercise therapy, which Professor Crawley is investigating in her MAGENTA trial? Does he share Professor Crawley’s belief that PACE is a “great, great” trial?

To simultaneously support both the Newcastle study and the treatments promoted by Professor Crawley and other members of the CBT/GET ideological brigades seems–at least to me–somewhat inconsistent and intellectually unsound. In Professor Holgate’s considered view, what is the plausible biological mechanism through which a course of CBT or GET could fix or “reverse” the dysfunctional energy production cycle identified by the “exciting results” of the Newcastle study? If the mitochondria are not generating sufficient energy for normal cellular function, how can changing patients’ thoughts about their illness and encouraging a steady increase in exercise resolve those physiological defects?

Professor Holgate is a smart guy, so perhaps he can provide reasonable and cogent answers to these questions. If so, it would be helpful if he could enlighten those of us who find it difficult to reconcile these divergent perspectives.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Paul_Watton 29 November 2017, 6:51 pm

    Presumably Berkley would be happy to let you have access to the same information @davetuller:disqus ?

  • Elle See 29 November 2017, 7:54 pm

    Thank you, once again, for standing up for patients who are too sick to help themselves. It’s astounding that people with ME/CFS are still being fundamentally unheard by so many. At this point, it seems to be willful ignorance of what patients have been saying for decades.

  • Mary Friedberg 29 November 2017, 8:00 pm

    Dear University of California, Berkeley

    I am writing a letter of support for the invaluable support provided to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS and ME/CFS) patients by Dr. David Tuller.

    It is my understanding that:

    1/ No meaningful response has ever been made to address any/all of the alleged flaws and faults in Ester Crawley’s work on chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome (CF and CFS), that have been identified and detailed by Dr. David Tuller and many others.

    2/ No meaningful response has ever been made to address any/all of the alleged flaws and faults in the work by the PACE trial on CFS, a trial that is publicly supported by Ester Crawley. Despite the flaws detailed by Dr. David Tuller and many others. Note, that more than 45 key CFS experts/scientists requested the retraction of The Lancet paper on the PACE trial.

    3/ Ester Crawley’s public claim that a cease and desist letter was sent by Bristol University to Dr. David Tuller of the University of California, Berkeley, appears false.

    4/ Ester Crawley’s claim of libel by Dr. David Tuller has not been substantiated, nor have details of the alleged libellous events been provided. The claim of libel, appears false.

    5/ Ester Crawley’s claim of defamation by Dr. David Tuller has not been substantiated, nor have details of the alleged defamation/s been provided. The claim of defamation, appears false.

    6/ / Ester Crawley’s public claims of harassment, via FOI requests appears false. How can a FOI request constitute “harassment” ?. In my opinion, lectures to medical professionals such as the British renal society by Ester Crawley, on how to reject FOI requests are highly inappropriate and against the spirit of the FOI Act.

    7/ Ester Crawley’s claim of harassment by CFS patients was rejected by the First Tribunal judge, who subsequently ordered the release of the requested PACE trial raw data by Queen Mary University of London. Ester Crawley’s claim of harassment, appears false.

    8/ Ester Crawley’s claims of harassment are not supported by the records held at Bristol University. The Universities records show that no claims of harassment to any staff members have been received in the past seven years. Again, Ester Crawley’s claim of harassment, appears false.

    9/ Sue Patterson Legal Director at Bristol University emailed the following statement to Dr. David Tuller, “it is my understanding that private and confidential communication has taken place at a senior level about your actions and behaviour towards staff involved with research into chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis at the University of Bristol.”

    By its very nature the content of Bristol University’s “ private and confidential communication” is unknown.

    It may be embarrassing for Bristol University to have the work of one of its staff publicly critiqued however it is the science that is being critiqued not the person. Robust discussion and debate is the cornerstone of good science and isn’t the development of critical thinking skills the purpose of a University.

    Contrary to the statement by Bristol University, about “staff involved with research into chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis at the University of Bristol” , I am not aware of Ester Crawley or any other staff at Bristol University studying myalgic encephalomyelitis. Myalgic encephalomyelitis patient are a specific subset of chronic fatigue syndrome patients. Ester Crawley has conflated chronic fatigue (a symptom) with chronic fatigue syndrome (a set of symptoms), to conflate this even further with ME is absurd.

    The International Consensus Criteria (2011) defines ME as the specific subset of patient’s disease which includes some easily measurable physiological abnormalities.

    To my knowledge, none of Ester Crawley’s work includes screening/measuring or observing changes in physiology of the children she studies. Her work lacks objective health measures such as resting heart rate, heart rate recovery, blood pressure, temperature changes that are listed in the International Consensus Criteria (2011) as present in patients with ME and key health measures that one would expect to be routinely obtained when studying a severely ill group of children with known physiological abnormalities.

    I request that the University of California publicly proclaims its support of Dr. Tuller’s quest for robust, objective science and sound debate and discussion on all aspects of the disease chronic fatigue syndrome.

    I suggest that in the interests of science, Bristol University does the same.

    Yours sincerely

    Mary Friedberg

  • Fiona 29 November 2017, 8:29 pm

    If “private and confidential communication has taken place at a senior level about your actions and behaviour”, why is Ms Paterson telling you about it? Sigh …

  • Jen 29 November 2017, 9:24 pm

    The Private Eye did a good expose over year or so ago, but in the next issue there was a full page pro PACE piece “For balance”. These people have powerful friends in very high places. Critics are quickly threatened and silenced. I’ve been sending links of David Tullers posts to the editor in the hope they keep up to date what is going on. Many are aware of the dubious goings on behind the scenes, but outing it is difficult as they are very well protected. Even by the misuse of the official secrets act.

  • clark ellis 29 November 2017, 10:04 pm

    yes, as others have said you’d have to make a subject access request. Here’s the ICO’s info on that:

    They may argue they don’t have it, that it was done via private email (if it was), but that would look a flimsy argument to me given they clearly know the content as they told you about it. And they’ll argue that you’re not the subject perhaps, or only constitute part of the subject. You’ll probably have to go through the ICO in the end and your luck may vary depending on who you are randomly assigned whether they actually want to apply the law or not.

    Worth a go though.

    Or maybe your own university will provide you a copy on the basis that the US is less backward than the UK and it’s just reasonable to give you a copy.

  • Orla Pwme 29 November 2017, 10:13 pm

    Hi Christina! Nail on the head there with that comment.

  • CureCFS 29 November 2017, 11:03 pm

    Well, if one already believes and tries to make 65 – 5 = 85, then of course the same mind could think there’s a “plausible biological mechanism through which a course of CBT or GET could fix or ‘reverse’ the dysfunctional energy production cycle.”

  • nancyblake 29 November 2017, 11:13 pm

    It has seemed evident, following developments including the IOM report, which states unequivocally that the idea that ME/CFS is psychogenic is incorrect, and that this disease is defined by the fact that ‘exertion, of any kind – physical, cognitive or emotional – may adversely affect many organ systems..’, and the reanalysis of the PACE Trial, that some of the Wessely group have stepped into the background, and that Esther Crawley has been put forward in the media as the poster girl for this lot and its model of ME/CFS.

    Earlier history is that following the early positive results reported for rituximab (now disappointingly not confirmed) Wessely and co scented the possibility of demands for research funding for biomedical research, and set up the ME/CFS Collaborative under the leadership of Professor Holgate in order to ensure that this group continued to absorb all available funding – an effort which Professor Crawley is clearly leading…with Huge trials, Lots of data, Lots of hype via appearances such as with Victoria Derbyshire (in which Jane Colby was allowed to put in a brief appearance as a nod to the idea of ‘balance’), but Esther was clearly the star of the show. She is certainly getting everywhere these days, as you make clear.

    As a psychotherapist, I am familiar with the process of ‘denial and projection’—I deny what I am doing, and accuse you of it. It is not just a psychiatric phenomenon, it gets acted out. For example, when researchers claim victimisation by anonymous, vicious, dangerous people, which makes research into this field positively life-threatening…which in the case of both Wessely and Crawley, have been shown to be false. While Crawley seems to spend rather a lot of her time making complaints to the GMC about doctors who do not use her treatment methods, and Wessely makes behind the scenes complaints to the staff of universities who support researchers whose work is challenging his model.

    Interesting that the letter from Bristol states that the higher levels of management in Bristol have approached the higher levels of management in your institution–no doubt anonymously. They do keep busy. (I looked up ‘high achieving sociopath’, and apparently the DSM have described a sociopath as someone who doesn’t follow the cultural norms. So if the cultural norms support attempting to destroy people’s careers by underhand means, it’s not being a sociopath. Curiouser and curiouser.)

  • deboruth 30 November 2017, 12:58 am

    Then again, whether deliberately or not, the second part does seem to be a cautionary message from Paterson; i.e. that Bristol folk are trying to make trouble for Dave Tuller at Berkeley by propagandizing his higher-ups. One is better off knowing this than not knowing. And elites do tend to favour one another, so any such is always a bit dangerous.

  • freecell0sd 30 November 2017, 2:07 am

    That letter from Paterson is so weird. What thought process could have led to it being written?

  • Esther Siebert 30 November 2017, 2:12 am

    Let’s not miss the forest for the trees. I’m not sure that carrying on this fight with Crawley who I understand was one of the PACE authors and/or supporters helps our cause. It is a distraction from the science where they do not have a leg to stand on. And allows them to paint themselves as victims. Pushing the scientific debunking of PACE accompanied by publicizing new research that inherently calls it into question might be the better way to go PR-wise. I read the letter they sent and it sounds like a not very well veiled threat to you, David. You might want to see if indeed there has been any communications with them by anyone at Berkeley. If they are complaining to people at Berkeley as if they are the victims, that may be another reason to back off of directing anything toward them personally. It feeds their narrative, not ours, and that concerns me. Best, Esther

  • cinderkeys 30 November 2017, 2:24 am

    Great stuff, as always. I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on the Lightning Process.

  • Paul_Watton 30 November 2017, 2:45 am

    Are you aware that the BBC’s Health & Science Correspondent, James Gallagher, is on the Advisory Committee of the Science Media Centre – and Wessely is a trustee.

    The SMCs stock-in-trade purports to be “expert reaction” to science stories and therefore, from what you describe, I suspect that this “Newsnight” story was shut down as a result of them being involved.

  • Paul_Watton 30 November 2017, 3:32 am

    A further thought:
    Maybe a FOIA request to the BBC – asking them to confirm whether Newsnight prepared a news report on the flaws in the PACE trial (in 2016/17) and, if so, the reason why it was never broadcast and who made that decision. Furthermore, if an “independent analysis” of the PACE trial played a part in the decision not to broadcast such a news story, who commissioned it and who undertook the analysis?
    It would obviously need to be worded and structured very carefully.

  • Paul_Watton 30 November 2017, 3:37 am

    Even if the communication took place via Email, it should still be divulged under a UK “subject data access request”

  • Valentijn 30 November 2017, 3:56 am


  • Valentijn 30 November 2017, 4:00 am

    Yes, I find it amusing that a lawyer doesn’t seem to know what confidential means 😛 Maybe she’s also daft enough to think that it being labeled as confidential will remove it from being covered by the FOIA.

  • Valentijn 30 November 2017, 4:08 am

    So you think Esther Crawley should be allowed to tour the country telling horrible lies about ME, patients, and advocates? She’s being a blatant bully, and ignoring it has just made the problem worse in the past.

  • Olivia Beatty 30 November 2017, 4:20 am

    Is this why UK journalists have been so unwilling to fight this battle? We get occasional supportive articles but little investigation. Last week a woman interviewed on the Today program said she had had ME as a teenager and the interviewer immediately corrected her and used chronic fatigue syndrome instead!

  • Olivia Beatty 30 November 2017, 4:33 am

    What angers me is the medical lethargy of the rest of the non psychiatric medical profession who were relieved to leave it in the hands of the psychiatrists, because they didn’t have a diagnostic test or drug to give.

  • davetuller 30 November 2017, 4:55 am

    Hi, Esther–I appreciate your perspective. The problem is, the science has already been fully debunked. My series, the open letters, the Tribunal decision, the reanalyses and everything else that has happened in the last two years demonstrates that. They simply refuse to acknowledge this. The only option they have left is to attack. It’s a desperation move because they cannot answer the questions about the trial, and Crawley apparently can’t answer tough questions about her research. I didn’t set out to pick a personal fight with them–I criticized their science and in the process slammed their unwillingness to explain the self-evident and glaring problems. I did this in strong terms because that seems to be the only thing that really gets their attention. Professor Crawley, in particular, has responded by yelling libel, talking about the police, citing non-existent cease-and-desist letters, and now her university is trying to scare me by citing vague “communications” with Berkeley. This is their only defense. I am now in the position of having to point out that their defense is completely bankrupt and their charges against me (and others) ridiculous. I think this strategy of avoiding robust debate goes to the heart of the problem and needs to be exposed for what it is. This “attack-because-we-have-no-other-defense” strategy has worked very well for them in the past, as we know. It needs to be vigorously challenged. I don’t think it will work out well for them this time. But time will tell.

  • Paul_Watton 30 November 2017, 6:27 am

    Quoting Sue Paterson:
    “and it is my understanding that private and confidential communication has taken place at a senior level about your actions and behaviour towards staff involved with research into chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis at the University of Bristol.”

    When you think about it, who else (other than Sue Paterson herself) initiated such a communication? The Vice Chancellor of the Uni? Maybe her job-share colleague? Whoever it was, it led to nothing.
    Well done Berkley.

    It’s also interesting to note that the University’s Vice Chancellor, Prof. Hugh Brady, is a nephrologist:
    Is that how / why Prof. Crawley came to give a talk to the British Renal Society?
    It also perhaps speaks to the closeness of the relationship she has with him.

  • Janet Comerford 30 November 2017, 7:33 am

    well said Graham

  • Luke 30 November 2017, 7:34 am

    Sorry, but without her being able to show solid evidence for why she needed to go to the police… about a reporter documenting her work and the hypothesis she is invested in and asking her questions at a public event…i can not see such a move–going to the police– as anything other than a desperate and futile and shameful tactic to make David go away, scare, discredit or smear him… rather than engage in a logical and reasonable defense of the matters he has raised.

  • Tina Rodwell 30 November 2017, 8:29 am

    What strikes me is that this clearly unacceptable behaviour happens in public, to a respected journalist, you have to wonder what they are capable of when it is a parent trying to protect their child in a hospital setting.

  • Leigh 30 November 2017, 9:17 am

    It is also not just a personal attack – it is showing that a scientist, who is frequently used as an expert on ME for panels that make decisions which affect policy and guidelines, is lying aboutmultiple things. Her research is being scrutinised ethically and practically and rather than answering straightforward questions (as you would expect to do in the scientific field) she throws insults and libellous statements.

  • Jan Wade 30 November 2017, 9:21 am

    Relishing that mental image….and the DitchWitch they steamrolled in on…..

  • Jan Wade 30 November 2017, 9:33 am

    character assassination/impeachment

  • Jan Wade 30 November 2017, 9:43 am

    “Piece of work” is putting it mildly – she and her ilk are like Erdogan, or Assad – always searching for that one perfect tweak to the rules of the game to permanently bury the incapacitated, discredit the weakest of the flock, and rise to complete and total power.

  • Jan Wade 30 November 2017, 9:52 am

    ….Well, yes, that, too, Christina Omorochoe… well as clumsy bold loud lies out of wholecloth, mangled and twisted untruths, far-fetched fabricated half-truths, and entire life-devaluing narratives and schemes used to keep all society inappropriately indoctrinated with dangerous propaganda …

  • Jan Wade 30 November 2017, 9:57 am

    God bless you Clark Ellis – awesome spotting of issues!

  • Jan Wade 30 November 2017, 10:05 am

    Yes, well, this isn’t pseudoscience – this is the intentional infliction of damage and injury on an entire class of disabled people

  • Olivia Beatty 30 November 2017, 10:29 am

    Has she ever been asked to debate her work with any of the heavyweights in the research world ?

  • Wendy Boutilier 30 November 2017, 1:43 pm

    The ME Community sees it as damage & injury but we can’t accuse “intentional” without something substantial. At this point in time we are still protecting ourselves because we don’t have HARD PROOF.

  • Steve Hawkins 30 November 2017, 11:42 pm

    Ah: I see. Bristol Uni contact:

    School of Education
    35 Berkeley Square
    Bristol, BS8 1JA

  • acacia1 1 December 2017, 3:19 am

    The misfortune of ME people rests on some psychs. throw-away opinions: I was stunned by the segment in Unrest where Per Fink, Karina Hansens’ jailer was asked, do you think ME is physical or psychological? He said, ‘I don’t know.’ But I find it more interesting to think of it as psychological. Words to that effect. That’s all it takes to lock up a sick young woman for years. No evidence required!

  • Paul Humphrey Schofield 1 December 2017, 3:31 am

    There are various reasons that M.E and the made up term of CFS carry so much subterfuge. Once these are acknowledged it becomes abundantly clear why confusion abounds.Of course there is no sense CBT GET approach. that has, and will never make sense. There is no sense in such a denial of such an horrendous illness as M.E. If the illness is treated as an auto immune response everything is resolvable. The problems are….initial creation and denial. No clinical or medical analysis of the illness before a patient is guessed at having the illness. Or as I term it BGS. Bad guess Syndrome which is far more accurate than the term CFS created in the US at and around the same time the first study was being created in the. Note timing to both these occurrences. CFS 1988 (USA) and the first (UK) trial 1989. The results of which were enclosed by the Official secretes act for 75 years. I personally take no credance in any half wit chasing the chariot of gov dictated subterfuge and thus (mental health malarky). That allows for constant blame to the totally innocent patient. It allows for no dignified research or enquiry. It would be worth theses halfwits enquiry to make an enquiry into a) what do they have….?. Is it M.E..or a GPS BGS. When policy is policy is policy despite all evidence to the contrary I understand the quandary. I personally obviously… my clear thinking was diagnosed many moons ago 1999. I did not suffer from GP intervention as I knew prior what to expect from a friend whom had enlightened me to the Vacuum that lay there.
    With all this in mind and after I had suffered much at the hands of the NHS (collapsing and ending up there), not thru any choice or desire. And the consequent years of pain that thus ensued I treated myself.

    I took the illness as an auto immune illness. I looked at what was going wrong within my body. And the aftermath of same 1999…….to 2014 and slowly in an informed and layman type way..(A bloke with an illness) That no one grasped at all..but me. It did take time but I am last the other side of well. All naturals. I cannot say how bad I was as its not transferable in any shared way. If someone had politely asked me…and of course they didnt. About the prospect of exercise and CBT. I could have A….Explained that I have the most incredible positive approach to life and everything and could have out thunk them on any level to this respect. And graded exercise..what a hullabaloo . From my bed that I couldnt move from lol. Prior to the illness I was a slim 17st fellow (yes I know that doesnt sound right but it is). That ran daily. anything upto 30 miles including fell running. I swam cycled and kayaked. I wonder how many of these so called positive thinking morons could even chase the wind off my back for a mile….The fact is…I had a registrar in a ward tell me that he didnt want MY KIND cluttering up his ward (I had protested continually , not wanting to be taken to hosp in the first place). he was a tubby fellow that looked like it was dificult for him to control his own fat intake and certainly had no fitness or mental well being and certainly was psychologically disturbed….So anyway. What im saying is good for you fella chase these wayward sacllywags who take the queens pound but not the dignity. I never gave them any credence as decent human beings, well you can’t can you. Good heavens is that the time….! Adue farewell and keep on asking easy questions to the array of dysfunctional clingons that invade the realms of the cat in the hat, the chuckle brothers and barmeyareus LTd and sycophants United. PS in 2006 I went to a Witch doctor in Upper Volta to get a cure…..For 2002 mumbo jumbos a dead cat in a hat and some special smoked weed he tried to fix me ( 35 quid all in). he knew like I did what he was saying and doing was bollocks, but at least we BOTH knew that.

  • Jan Wade 1 December 2017, 4:02 am

    She’s a full blown criminal

  • Jan Wade 1 December 2017, 4:05 am

    She should NEVER be invited to debate – that ship has sailed. Now she should be invited have a seat in lockup.

  • Jan Wade 1 December 2017, 4:07 am

    Me too, but I’m not sure how great I feel about giving Crawley top billing in the title…..

  • Jan Wade 1 December 2017, 4:14 am

    nobody should care what anyone thinks about the discredited, harmful, dangerous Lightning Process

  • mesupport 1 December 2017, 10:01 am
  • Alex Young 2 December 2017, 4:33 pm

    We do have proof of one thing … David identified the paper from 2007 in which PDW, and this is not EC, knew that the calculation of SD from the SF35PF data was improper. They then did this anyway. On the wrong data set. So we can argue deliberate manipulation of data in PACE. The issue here is whether or not it is reasonable to infer deliberate bias in the other myriad major problems in PACE, and whether or not this also applies to other research using similar methodology. While for some it might be deliberate, I suspect others are just blindly following flawed methodology. It looks bad either way.

  • Wendy Boutilier 2 December 2017, 6:25 pm

    Let’s hope that’s sufficient.

  • Geoffrey Brown 4 December 2017, 2:39 am

    gee i wish i could get into the act

  • johnnydme 4 December 2017, 3:33 pm

    Sorry to hear it happened to him too. I just had remembered that someone from PACE wrote a letter that he was a patient, and supposedly this, somehow, disqualified him from publishing scienctific articles on the topic?!

    This is an ongoing pattern when the biospychosocial “research” on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis is scrutinized.

    Hopefully the pattern be documented somewhere (in a website or a thread?) so there is an easy historical record to refer when the journalists in the U.K. will finally cover it.

    Of course the irony has been pointed out many times before but harassment and intimidation is precisely what they accuse desperately ill ME patients of doing! Often from large platforms such as the Guardian, Daily Mail, BBC…

    Even if the reader is not inclined to read the background on these stigmatizing campaigns by them, hopefully many will sense something is “not right” about doctors maligning the very group they profess to care for…

  • GQ 14 December 2017, 1:51 pm

    This is shocking and a new low even for this BPS cabal.

    Simon Wessely and his PACE colleagues have used these sorts of tactics to silence other health professionals and the UK media from criticising their flawed work such as the PACE trial. This strategy will not work anymore. They are acting like gangsters with this sort of intimidation and threats.

    You should try to raise awareness of this threat in the UK media or perhaps enlist Sense about Science about the threats made and the false accusations of libel. Perhaps you could be awarded a Standing up for Science award.!! Oh ..Simon Wessely has that base covered as he is also on the board of it. Where is Simon Singh of SaS who is usually very vocal about these issues and why is he not speaking out about the bad science of Crawley and colleagues and these threats?