• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

More from Science Medica Centre on SMILE

Woolie

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
Sean said:
Yeah, I am still trying to figure out what they gain by even mentioning it, let alone promoting and defending it so extravagantly.

If ever there was a BPS research story for them to completely ignore, this is it.

Shows either their lack of genuine scientific understanding, or overconfidence in the power of their propaganda machine.
Click to expand...
I suppose the SMC is sort of like a defence lawyer who takes instructions from their client. So they have to do what their funding institutions request? I've always thought of it as a huge marketing company for academic researchers and their institutions.
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Crawley's paper shows how people can be conned or mislead when a trial does blackbox testing. The paper doesn't explain the intervention hence when the paper is sent to experts for comment they have no real way of assessing whether the measurement systems are sufficient to measure improvements in the trial. If they were more aware of the nature of the intervention then perhaps they would have had more concerns. But then perhaps they should 'fail safe' with their opinions and if the knowledge isn't in the paper then don't make assumptions.
 
A

arewenearlythereyet

Senior Member
Messages
1,478
user9876 said:
Crawley's paper shows how people can be conned or mislead when a trial does blackbox testing. The paper doesn't explain the intervention hence when the paper is sent to experts for comment they have no real way of assessing whether the measurement systems are sufficient to measure improvements in the trial. If they were more aware of the nature of the intervention then perhaps they would have had more concerns. But then perhaps they should 'fail safe' with their opinions and if the knowledge isn't in the paper then don't make assumptions.
Click to expand...
We really need a TV expose to highlight this nonsense visually....Louis Theroux springs to mind
 
trishrhymes

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
user9876 said:
Crawley's paper shows how people can be conned or mislead when a trial does blackbox testing. The paper doesn't explain the intervention hence when the paper is sent to experts for comment they have no real way of assessing whether the measurement systems are sufficient to measure improvements in the trial. If they were more aware of the nature of the intervention then perhaps they would have had more concerns. But then perhaps they should 'fail safe' with their opinions and if the knowledge isn't in the paper then don't make assumptions.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. I can see that 'black box testing' could be valid in a properly double blinded trial with objective outcome measures. In a sense a drug whose mode of action is not fully understood could be called a black box because we're not clear what it does.

But in a trial with subjective outcome measures, anyone assessing efficacy needs to know whether the contents of the black box include brainwashing subjects into filling in the questionnaires in a particular way which invalidates the use of those questionnaires, and hence the whole trial.
 
lilpink

lilpink

Senior Member
Messages
988
Location
UK
Countrygirl said:
I hadn't heard of that one before! :D

............armed????............oh, yes,...............one coffee cup! :p

For goodness sake!..........they make themselves sound ridiculous............. and increasingly so as the truth is peculating through into the public domain

I'm posting the comment @lilpink mentioned above as it has a lot of good info in one document:
Click to expand...

Is somebody screen grabbing this? These things have a habit of disappearing..heaven knows why! :cautious:
 
L

Londinium

Senior Member
Messages
178
Demepivo said:
Please leave comments on Fiona Fox's blog ;)

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/inconvenient-truths/
Click to expand...

I'm not I agree. As I said above, the second comment in provides such a thorough fisking of the blog, that further comments might actually detract from that. A bit like the fabled Reddit 'hug of death'.

Getting an avalanche of responses can just feed into the 'usual ME activists' stereotypes. Personally, I'd leave it as it stands. (All IMHO of course)
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
trishrhymes said:
That's a very good point. I can see that 'black box testing' could be valid in a properly double blinded trial with objective outcome measures. In a sense a drug whose mode of action is not fully understood could be called a black box because we're not clear what it does.

But in a trial with subjective outcome measures, anyone assessing efficacy needs to know whether the contents of the black box include brainwashing subjects into filling in the questionnaires in a particular way which invalidates the use of those questionnaires, and hence the whole trial.
Click to expand...

I think there are two points. Firstly when designing a trial you need to know that the intervention doesn't interact with the measurement system directly. and secondly when reviewing you need to understand this. My point about the SMC reviewers is they were not given sufficient information in the paper to understand that the way LP works is to tell people to ignore their symptoms so self reports won't work. But in designing the trial Crawley should have understood LP to properly design it (and to consider safety issues).
 
B

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
user9876 said:
I think there are two points. Firstly when designing a trial you need to know that the intervention doesn't interact with the measurement system directly. and secondly when reviewing you need to understand this. My point about the SMC reviewers is they were not given sufficient information in the paper to understand that the way LP works is to tell people to ignore their symptoms so self reports won't work. But in designing the trial Crawley should have understood LP to properly design it (and to consider safety issues).
Click to expand...
I also touched on my worries regarding the black box issue (though not in those words) in my post here ...

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...-can-anyone-tune-in.54509/page-10#post-910926
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...-can-anyone-tune-in.54509/page-10#post-910926
... though not explicitly from your extremely valid perspective here. It's akin to measuring the temperature of something, and the very act of dipping the thermometer in causing the temperature to drop by several degrees. If people then reviewing the experiment do not understand this effect, or even worse, reviewing an experiement where such detail is hidden from them, the review is worthless, and the experiement/trial should be deemed null and void.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.