An update from the BBTA. If you remember, I sent the post above to the BBTA asking them to add it to their website as I had posted their comments here. The chair replied saying that they would. But yesterday I received an email saying the BBTA had decided it was “inappropriate” to add my thoughts to their website. They also gave me some details of the comments they had found unprofessional. Suffice to say they don’t amount to be a big tin off beans.
As RogerM predicted in previous blog posts
…… They could always prove me wrong and add Prof. Tyson’s reply to the criticisms of this blog to their website. But as the primary motive of the BBTA seems to be to promote their courses and themselves (rather than the best neurorehabilitation) I somehow think they will try to avoid that!
……… BBTA hide evidence.
One more point I have noticed is that the BBTA website contains a rebuttal of criticism of their approach, but does not tell us where the criticism is published. I presume it is a rebuttal of this blog and previous comments on iCSP. They then reprint the supportive comments of James McLoughlin from this blog, but again do not tell people where they can read the comments that are critical of them. Sarah Tyson in contrast is happy to openly debate all the evidence in an open manner, the BBTA only want to talk about what supports their position. This desire to hide anything that is negative about them is also evident in the way they only quote the minority of research that support their approach. It is a sign of a defensive and closed attitude to best evidence and seems to put the interests of the BBTA before anything else. Is this really the best way forwards for our profession and patients?