alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
Scientology reference? L Ron Hubbard was bet $1 that he could not invent a new religion, back in the 1930s.or maybe it's all been a $1 bet.
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.
Scientology reference? L Ron Hubbard was bet $1 that he could not invent a new religion, back in the 1930s.or maybe it's all been a $1 bet.
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.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.
Brewsters MillionsScientology reference? L Ron Hubbard was bet $1 that he could not invent a new religion, back in the 1930s.
"Gibberish"
“It’s safer to insult the Prophet Mohammed than to contradict the armed wing of the ME brigade”
s*d Fiona Fox; hopefully anyone reading the SMC tripe will read it.I hope Fiona Fox reads it and takes notice.
Crawley's paper shows how people can be conned or mislead when a trial does blackbox testing
We really need a TV expose to highlight this nonsense visually....Louis Theroux springs to mindCrawley'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.
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.
Louis Theroux undertaking the Lightning Process, I would watch that!!We really need a TV expose to highlight this nonsense visually....Louis Theroux springs to mind
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.Louis Theroux undertaking the Lightning Process, I would watch that!!
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:
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 also touched on my worries regarding the black box issue (though not in those words) in my post here ...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).