Have there been any high-profile critiques of open-label, subjective-measures BPS randomised trials? If not, why not?

I think Professor @Brian Hughes is someone well informed and who writes well on this subject in books, blogs and published papers. I don't recall whether he's had a paper published in a prominent journal specifically about this problem. But he's a psychology professor, not a clinician. As far as I know he doesn't run clinical trials himself.
 
Sasha said:
So why is no one going for the easy win and making a big name for themselves by mass-debunking this stuff?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because of the unspoken feeling that if a disease isn't real, it's unimportant if the research into it isn't real either - no one's going to make a big name for themselves by pointing out that it's pretend science when the people pretending to do the science already know it's pretend and are happily tipping everyone else off with winks and nudges.
 
Yann04 said:
To be clear. I was making a point that the science based medicine blog doesn’t critique psychsomatic BS while being very critical of Bio BS. And this is a sort of stance we see a lot with general “critical thinking/sceptic” people.

I think you misread me because it sounds like you assumed I was saying the blog did critique it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're right, I did! :)
 
Eleanor said:
Perhaps because of the unspoken feeling that if a disease isn't real, it's unimportant if the research into it isn't real either - no one's going to make a big name for themselves by pointing out that it's pretend science when the people pretending to do the science already know it's pretend and are happily tipping everyone else off with winks and nudges.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered but there are lots of other conditions to which BPS stuff is getting applied, and I would have thought that the whole field was awash with this design problem.
 
Sasha said:
That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered but there are lots of other conditions to which BPS stuff is getting applied, and I would have thought that the whole field was awash with this design problem.
Click to expand...
We've been subservient to a psychology culture since the early days of TV.

That's only worsened by institutions like the NHS and NIH and CDC.

I don't think I'm alone in saying I was raised to look at psychologists as the arbiters of reality. To look at disinterested researchers within the NIH and CDC and NHS as the standard bearers and tip of the spears of medical progress and fact.

Now I wouldn't trust any of that ilk, despite my earlier misplaced reverence. I feel like every confidence in them has not only been betrayed, but has been used against me and people like me. Like we're complicit in our own undoing.

To misquote Hozier's "Take Me To Church":

I worshiped like a dog at the shrine of your lies,
I told you my sins so you could sharpen your knives.

If pwME can feel that way, how can we expect others to pick up our torch? Obviously it should happen regardless. I suspect, however, it will have to involve medical professionals with loved ones with ME/CFS, individuals with a vested interest that extends beyond greed and legacy concerns.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom