And any other non-therapeutic confounders they can get their hands on.Their research methods organically grow into the best strategy to optimize for placebo effects.
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.
And any other non-therapeutic confounders they can get their hands on.Their research methods organically grow into the best strategy to optimize for placebo effects.
And any other non-therapeutic confounders they can get their hands on.
Placebo effect = effect seen in a placebo control group = everything that can create the appearance that a treatment is working even when it is not.
At least that's how I think about it.
It is one of the things that if she listened to patient criticisms then she could improve the standard of her work. But then if she can get a chair with the work she has done perhaps there is little motivation to increase quality.
There is motivation to avoid increasing the quality her work,
For people like Prof Crawley the quality of work is virtually irrelevant - it's all about empire building. It was clear from her talk, no real science in there and no solid foundation to her claims. Wessely and the rest of the BPS gang are the same, we see it over and over.
I think objections are more general. Her work is just not very good. For example, in her latest trial protocols she has no objective measures and the primary end-point matches the point of maximum benefit with the fitnet trial she is trying to replicate. No justifications are given and so it looks like an attempt to get success at any cost. With her study on the ALSPAC database she has a weird reasoning chain where she measures (very crudely) fatigue calls that CFS then asks if there is depression to see if people with CFS are also depressed. But depression can cause fatigue so her chain of reasoning is simply wrong and hence the figures she gives are misleading.
By sheer coincidence social adversity, lower social economic class, child abuse or trauma are also strong predictors of vulnerability to sociopaths like Crawley and also strong predictors of how likely a career-minded sociopath like her will be able to do what she wants without being held accountable. Funny how she's honed in on such groups like a radio 1 DJ to a bouncy castle."we've made some progress and I can tell you so far that we know that social adversity, lower social economic
class, are strong predictors of developing chronic fatigue syndrome. We found new evidence unlike other
researchers that child abuse or trauma predicts chronic fatigue syndrome."
We found new evidence unlike other researchers that child abuse or trauma predicts chronic fatigue syndrome.
twas ICrawley's Fatigue Syndrome (I forget whom we have to thank for that
'Meta-ethnography is a method for combining data from qualitative evaluation and research, especially ethnographic data, by translating concepts and metaphors across studies'
So not science then.
Sorry for the bad joke but couldn't resist
I put a spell on you ...
caption competition?
caption competition?
caption competition?