Trial By Error: My Latest Letter to Bristol’s Legal Department

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
Today I sent the following e-mail to Sue Paterson, director of legal services at Bristol University. I cc-d several other people on the e-mail.

**********

Dear Ms Paterson—

Earlier this month, I sent you an e-mail to ask, among other questions, when Bristol University plans to finish its investigation of studies that exempted themselves from ethical review as “service evaluation”–all based on a single research ethics committee letter. As you know, I have documented that at least 11 studies have cited this letter, which appeared to have nothing to do with any of them.
Click to expand...
http://www.virology.ws/2019/04/29/trial-by-error-my-latest-letter-to-bristols-legal-department/
 
5. As you know, a key investigator involved in these studies publicly accused me of writing “libelous blogs” but has failed for two years to provide evidence or documentation that anything I have written is libelous. Despite my efforts to obtain clarity on this matter, Bristol has also declined to provide evidence or documentation that anything I have written is libelous. Since my examination of this body of research has led to Bristol’s current “independent” investigation of some studies as well as an editor’s note on the Lightning Process study, is the university prepared at this point to withdraw and apologize for this unwarranted libel accusation? If not, is Bristol prepared at this point to provide evidence or documentation to support the charge that I have committed libel?
Click to expand...
Time to put up or shut up. They have been allowed to throw around accusations without evidence while whining that legitimate complaints about their work are vexatious despite being well-documented. All that despite having been scolded by a tribunal for making gross exaggerations. Enough of this crap.

Even following the PR whine fest both Sharpe and Wessely admitted the "trolling" accusations that are the core of the grievances are not really the problem, that it's legitimate complaints about the horrible quality of their research that is causing them trouble, and rightly so. This is completely ridiculous.
 
Yeah - I found that list, especially the last few, to be very 'cutting'.

It will be interesting to see how, or if, they respond.

Which particular manner or deflection or obfuscation they will chose to employ this time.
 
I brought the matter to the attention of the National Health Service’s Health Research Authority, which requested Bristol to conduct an “independent” review of the matter.
Click to expand...
I am cc-ing a number of people on this e-mail. First, I am cc-ing three members of the House of Commons, all of whom have all expressed dismay at the poor quality of much of the research into ME/CFS–Carol Monaghan MP, Nicky Morgan MP, and Darren Jones MP, the latter from the Bristol area. I am also cc-ing two parliamentary aides involved in the matter.
Click to expand...
I am cc-ing Tom Whipple, science reporter at The Times
Click to expand...
I am also cc-ing Dr Fiona Godlee, editorial director of BMJ
Click to expand...
I am cc-ing four of those involved in the NICE process–Dr Luis Nacul, Dr William Weir, Dr Charles Shepherd, and Professor Jonathan Edwards.
Click to expand...

I like
 
I think Bristol's silence says it all. They are profoundly aware I think, they have no answer that won't drop them into a huge dog pile, so they do they only thing they can think of doing ... dig in and stonewall. Ideally it needs some higher authority to force them out of that foxhole, compel them to talk. I suspect their lawyers all tell them to say nothing at all, for as long as they can get away with it. Silence speaks volumes.
 
In these situations the normal way is to home in on a scapegoat or two, who they can blame everything on and takes the flak so no one else gets seriously hit by it. Damage limitation. Ideally all culpable would be made liable. But if they really do manage to put it all on one person, then EC would be the right choice in my book, and in truth, from Bristol's perspective also I would think.
 
Barry said:
In these situations the normal way is to home in on a scapegoat or two, who they can blame everything on and takes the flak so no one else gets seriously hit by it. Damage limitation. Ideally all culpable would be made liable. But if they really do manage to put it all on one person, then EC would be the right choice in my book, and in truth, from Bristol's perspective also I would think.
Click to expand...
While i don't condone scapegoats if they stop promoting reality denying harmful treatments by blaming a scapegoat thats their business. I do care that they stop harming us.
Once they pick a fall person they can spend the rest of their "careers" fighting over who is to blame but from the outside we already know its all of them. We will write the next chapter of ME history because we are not the reality deniers. I won't shed a tear if they end up before an ethics board or courtroom, in fact i hope they all do since they have a great deal to answer for and have escaped any culpability.

A legitimate court can assign blame as it sees fit.
 
Sly Saint said:
"at least 11 studies have cited this letter, which appeared to have nothing to do with any of them."

a literal 'carte blanche' for Crawley.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall an instance of a journal citing every paper posted in it raising its entire impact factor by exactly 1. I forget if it won an IG Nobel prize or where i read about it.
 
Feels as if we need to get the students of that august institution on our side. There must be someone whose partner or close family member is severely affected by ME, and therefore by the crap that Bristol puts out. Students are somewhat more openminded than senior academics on the whole...and pissing them off raises the prospect of hitting the university in the pocket!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom