Trial By Error: Bristol Investigating Crawley Papers

http://www.virology.ws/2019/01/31/trial-by-error-bristol-investigating-crawley-papers/

 

Well done, @dave30th.

 

"In other words, some of Professor Crawley’s work is now under formal scrutiny."
about bl**** time.
thanks to @dave30th tenacity

 

Great to hear but I wish it was a more independent investigation, it's like letting Volkswagen investigate whether they cheated emissions.

 

Have just got round to looking at the Health Research Authority's website (see https://www.hra.nhs.uk ). On their section on their governance the say:

The Board Members are Dr Allison Jeynes-Ellis, Dr Janet Messer, Graham Clarke, Ian Cook, Juliet Tizzard, Karen Williams, Orof Deirdre Kelly, Prof Sir JonThan Montgomery and Teresa Allen (those with science or medical backgrounds seem to come from pharmacology, biochemistry or very much biomedical backgrounds, see https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/who-we-are/our-board-members/ ). They don't seem to list the volunteers that sit on their Research Ethics Committees (see https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/res-and-recs/ ) So far I have not found anything on their site relating to research malpractice in published studies.

 

*Puts more coins in the piggy bank ready to donate if @dave30th crowdfunds for another year*

 

Oh please ... !!!

ETA: Maybe she meant cognitive systems?

 

Hopefully "investigation" is not simply evasive speak for *rse covering rearranging of deck chairs.

 

It may be a useful exercise to go through the HRA's research summaries relating to ME, ME/CFS, etc by searching on their Research Summaries page (see https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/ ), I found 61 summaries for CFS and 58 for ME/CFS, but will need to return to this when I am more on the ball.

Their procedures for 'feedback or concerns' seems to relate primarily to researchers rather than third parties (see https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/governance/feedback-raising-concerns/ ), which is perhaps not surprising given the status quo in the UK is not set up to take into account third party or patient input, but are there matters we at S4ME, individually or collectively would want to raise with them?

It will be interesting to see how proactive they will be in relation to this Bristol debacle, whether their raising the current issues with Bristol came from a real understanding or some form of 'going through the motions'.

 

As in wading through bullshit?

 

Doing a search for 'Crawley' on the the HRA research summaries page (see https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and...search_type=&rec_opinion=&date_from=&date_to= ), though MAGENTA and FITNET-NHS appear, none of the studies raised by @dave30th appear.

This is not surprising in relation to the studies for which she sidestepped ethical aproval on false grounds, but the Lightning Process study also fails to appear.

 

Did someone check the local planning department at Alpha Centauri?

 

Considering the issues raised all fall within the bounds of BMJ's own rules and guidelines, this is most definitely not something that anyone should understand, or even find reasonable. There are no known extenuating circumstances, in fact it is utterly bizarre to raise this. Coming from a lower-level employee, sure, but coming from the editor this seems to suggest external interference.

Why does everything Crawley publish need so much institutional water-carrying? Why is there any happening at all? Scientific journals are supposed to be arbiters of research, not cheerleaders and enforcers. If this continues it will eventually raise fundamental problems within the whole of UK medical institutions.

 

Seems like the strategy is stretching this into infinity. Ignore it for as long as you can, throw in a "yea yea we're on it, you must understand our difficulties" rinse, repeat. Good thing @dave30th is tenacious

 

There are matters beyond our immediate control that make this challenging as I am sure you understand

My impression is that David, and perhaps the rest of us, is supposed to have some insight into these matters outside control. Perhaps there is something unusual going on that is supposed to be discreetly in public circulation (if that makes sense). It is all pretty peculiar, certainly.

But it is hard to see what takes precedence over the interests of the patient community, and scientific probity as a whole.

 

Is it clear what is meant by "our"? If it means the editorial staff, the problem could be the proprietors. If it means the company then it is hard to see. One would have thought any comments could be framed in such a way as to avoid any legal threats. It seems to imply "force majeure".

 

To put it simply it seems to me most likely to mean either:

1. You-will-know-who is breathing down our neck
2. Dr Crawley is ill

The former makes more sense. But it doesn't wash.

 

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'. Ever thought of going into advertising?"