Crawley: How to deal with anti-science BRS2017

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Likes
13,643
Location
UK
Quantitative sensory testing for pain.

What could go wrong?
Yes, I did think that seemed a rather unlikely mix. Probably turn out to be applying hard numbers to questionnaire responses ... so that will all hang together nicely then won't it! ... :rolleyes:. Well proven technique from all those wonderful trials that have used it before ... :vomit:. Disbelievers no doubt labelled as having false-qualitative beliefs.
 
Last edited:

JaimeS

Senior Member
Messages
3,407
Likes
12,216
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Yes, I did think that seemed a rather unlikely mix. Probably turn out to be applying hard numbers to questionnaire responses ... so that will all hang together nicely then won't it! ... :rolleyes:. Well proven technique from all those wonderful trials that have used it before ... :vomit:
Quantitative means that they are measuring something.

They are taking people sensitive to pain and hurting them.

Then they are asking how much that hurts.

Then, they are relating that back to psychosomatic voodoo.

Just a guess.

-J
 

MEMum

Senior Member
Messages
440
Likes
2,251
What is QST?
Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) is a valuable method for diagnosing peripheral nervous system disorders, including chronic pain and pain related to various diseases, such as Diabetes and CRPS. QST essentially determines the sensation and pain thresholds for cold and warm temperatures, and the vibration sensation threshold by stimulating the skin and comparing the results to normative values built in the software. When the stimulus activates stimuli-specific receptors; the nerve fibers that innervate the receptors communicate the stimuli’s message to the central nervous system, where feeling occurs.

Why QST?
Quantitative Sensory Testing is a non-invasive, pain-free technique that can assist in early detection, therapy selection and monitoring the progression and recovery of patients with peripheral sensory disorders

The diagnostic power of Quantitative Sensory Testing as a tool in diagnosing peripheral nervous systems disorders is a unique combination of instrumentation and technology, integrated with robust software and mission-specific hardware. When packaged in application-specific systems and configurations based on varying sensory modalities, and different body locations for specific medical or research needs, QST systems are valuable elements in medical research and treatment. This integration and packaging is the foundation of all Medoc’s products and systems.

Above is from manufacturers website
 

MEMum

Senior Member
Messages
440
Likes
2,251
However, looking at papers/reports on it:

Quantitative sensory tests are psychophysical in nature, requiring cooperation from the patient. While the sensory stimulus is an objective physical event, the response represents the subjective report from a patient or control subject. If abnormal, the result may signal dysfunction anywhere along the sensory pathway between the receptor apparatus, the primary sensory cortex, and the association cortex. Furthermore, psychological factors figure prominently in sensory function perception. Thus, QST differs from nerve conduction and evoked potential testing in which the stimulus generates an evoked response that is generally independent of cooperation from the subject.

QST DEVICES.
QST systems are separable into devices that generate specific physical vibratory or thermal stimuli and those that deliver electrical impulses at specific frequencies. Vibration is defined as the sensation in response to high-frequency sinusoidal mechanical stimulation. To generate vibration, QST devices typically utilize stimulators with a designed frequency and adjustable amplitude. Frequencies around 200–300 Hz are optimal because Pacinian corpuscles are most sensitive to vibration in this range. Stimulation at 128 Hz is also acceptable for clinical use but is likely to stimulate both Meissner’s as well as Pacinian corpuscles.1 Devices that generate ual test. Taken together, these studies suggest that QST is most effective when used in concert with other modalities of neuropathy evaluation.
 
Last edited:
Messages
77
Likes
386
This is just horrible.....
Pediatric conference today called: "A DAY WITH THE MUPP(ET)S" referring to patients with medically unexplained physical / psychological symptoms
Which includes a Crawley talk on CFS.

The Trust reacts:
https://www.facebook.com/tymestrust...582732026864/1973008186317647/?type=3&theater

an apology was made..but still 100 pediatricians are taught today ME = MUS https://www.facebook.com/tymestrust...582732026864/1973080956310370/?type=3&theater

If you have not please sign to help
ME=not MUS
The BPS model (unproven) does NOT apply to ME
CBT/GEt are not evidence based.

https://meisgeensolk.petities.nl/?locale=en
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Likes
28,349
I feel less than joyous about it, but at this point, with the CMRC board issuing statements of support for Crawley in response to her attempting to dismiss Tuller and other critics as libelous and 'anti-science', it clearly is right for patient groups to withdraw from the CMRC. It's making things worse for us, and prolonging this harmful scandal.

(There's still a tiny part of me foolish enough to hope a sudden and clear reversal from the CMRC can be achieved by the MEA... but I know that's a fantasy).
 

JaimeS

Senior Member
Messages
3,407
Likes
12,216
Location
Silicon Valley, CA

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Likes
18,188
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
....hits 'donate' button so fast...

[Edit... wish they had PayPal. Having problems donating b/c of US card.]
An awesome idea, wish I'd thought of it earlier.

When you donate, you can add a message to the charity, so I thanked them for leaving the CMRC and encouraged them to continue with the biomedical research.
 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Likes
8,986
Trial By Error, Continued: ME Research UK Drops Out of CMRC

I am now trying to ascertain what prompted Dr. Holgate to issue such a statement. I had assumed he canvassed every single member of the executive board to gauge whether there was in fact “full support” for Dr. Crawley. Perhaps he did—and perhaps ME Research UK affirmed support for Dr. Crawley yet decided to leave days later for unrelated reasons. But that just seems unlikely.
http://www.virology.ws/2017/05/22/trial-by-error-continued-me-research-uk-drops-out-of-cmrc/