More from Science Medica Centre on SMILE

[alex3619]

or maybe it's all been a $1 bet.

Scientology reference? L Ron Hubbard was bet $1 that he could not invent a new religion, back in the 1930s.

 

[Woolie]

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.

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.

 

[Wonko]

Scientology reference? L Ron Hubbard was bet $1 that he could not invent a new religion, back in the 1930s.

Brewsters Millions

edit - nope, not that one, the one, Trading Places, that's it.

 

[Countrygirl]

"Gibberish"

"Doing a Crawley" dictionary definition 'promoting junk science for one's own or one's allies' vested interest" aka " Gibberish"

 

[Large Donner]

“It’s safer to insult the Prophet Mohammed than to contradict the armed wing of the ME brigade”

Its not.

 

[wastwater]

Do these people really not know what they are doing
It is a large drag net and in some cases they may do good
In other cases no good

 

[trishrhymes]

Whoever 'Scary vocal critic' is, I want to thank them. An outstanding response. I hope Fiona Fox reads it and takes notice.

 

[slysaint]

I hope Fiona Fox reads it and takes notice.

s*d Fiona Fox; hopefully anyone reading the SMC tripe will read it.

 

[user9876]

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.

 

[Chrisb]

Crawley's paper shows how people can be conned or mislead when a trial does blackbox testing

I suggest that science cannot involve "black box" testing. You can do "black box" testing , but it ain't science. The contents of the black box have to be taken on trust. Trust, of this type, can play no part in science.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

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.

We really need a TV expose to highlight this nonsense visually....Louis Theroux springs to mind

 

[trishrhymes]

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.

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.

 

[Revel]

We really need a TV expose to highlight this nonsense visually....Louis Theroux springs to mind

Louis Theroux undertaking the Lightning Process, I would watch that!!

 

[Mrs Sowester]

Louis Theroux undertaking the Lightning Process, I would watch that!!

Or Derren Brown, remember he did faith healing? He actually trained someone to do it and took them on the US circuit. The trainee had a huge crisis of conscience if I recall correctly.

 

[lilpink]

I hadn't heard of that one before!

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

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:

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

 

[Demepivo]

David Colquhon's tweet that Fiona Fox objected to....Show it some love?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910474493260386304

 

[Demepivo]

Please leave comments on Fiona Fox's blog

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/inconvenient-truths/

 

[Londinium]

Please leave comments on Fiona Fox's blog

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/inconvenient-truths/

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)

 

[user9876]

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.

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).

 

[Barry53]

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).

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/index.php?threads/me-cfs-cfs-me-on-bbc-today-programme-now-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.