Tuller / 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.

 

Oh, come on, she can make any data mean whatever she wants, so this would hardly be a tortuous misinterpretation for her at all.

 

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.

 

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:

 

I will be out of my depth until further notice.

 

I think, given that it's currently December, that that message may need to state the year the stated return date is planned to occur in.

 

From David Tuller's blog :

The slide :



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

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!

 

What's this "Muppets" thing?

 

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.

 

Thank you, @Trish and @Cheshire!

Not only in UK. Unbelievable! They are viewing sick, unemployed, poor and normal people as garbage, aren't they? Well, everything that is not them is bad

Arrogance is part of stupidity.

 

LOL at:

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Code:

https://twitter.com/davidtuller1/status/937720077339815936

 

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.

 

Indeed, David is awesome, glad he is interested in ME/CFS