Trial By Error: A Plea to Fiona Godlee on a Familiar Topic

Jonathan Edwards said:
Dr Crawley said she was not expecting the Lightning Process to work. So an apparent beneficial effect ought not to be due to 'expectation bias'. I think things in reality are more complicated, but it is intriguing.
Click to expand...
Since they swapped outcomes to make sure it "worked," it wasn't clear to me how she could have been surprised. that seems to me to have been, let's say, not quite a true statement.
 
dave30th said:
Since they swapped outcomes to make sure it "worked," it wasn't clear to me how she could have been surprised. that seems to me to have been, let's say, not quite a true statement.
Click to expand...

That assumes rational thinking. That may be a precarious assumption.
Not expecting something to work is not the same as not being motivated to help it work.
 
Barry said:
And who can ever take what EC says at face value, or whether it was said just for rhetorical effect so it sounded all the more impressive that LP (supposedly) did work. When it comes to sleight of word and presentation, I would not take anything for granted.
Click to expand...
And I think, as LP is such a mixture of esoteric craps, she couldn't say she thought it would be successfull before there was any results. But as it has been sanctified by "science", she can now claim it works without anyone clearly knowing why (while thinking CFS patient are just so irrational).
 
Barry said:
And who can ever take what EC says at face value, or whether it was said just for rhetorical effect so it sounded all the more impressive that LP (supposedly) did work. When it comes to sleight of word and presentation, I would not take anything for granted.
Click to expand...
PACE researchers also affirmed being at equipoise about the "treatments" they have been promoting as highly successful for decades at this point.

Their word is meaningless in this context, the whole of psychosocial ME research has been built on deceit and they think it's fine if it "works".
 
Crawley was describing her LP pracitioner as 'good' back in 2011:

Q5: The practitioner of the lightning therapy has no other allied professional qualifications. The Committee suggested that it might be beneficial to the research if the practitioner had external qualifications other than in Lightning therapy and was covered by a code of conduct?

Dr Crawley replied there is a geographical limitation to who can be chosen and that she has worked before with the Bath practitioner who is good.
Click to expand...

https://meagenda.wordpress.com/2011...lation-to-smile-lighting-process-pilot-study/

Presumably that indicates that she thought they were able to effectively treat their patients, unless she meant 'good' at taking money from credulous patients and providing quackery.

I'd assume Crawley's claims about being surprised by her result as just spin. Maybe it's true and her earlier 'good' claim were spin? I think it could just all be spin, and she just says what she thinks will be useful for her.
 
Esther12 said:
Crawley was describing her LP pracitioner as 'good' back in 2011:
Q5: The practitioner of the lightning therapy has no other allied professional qualifications. The Committee suggested that it might be beneficial to the research if the practitioner had external qualifications other than in Lightning therapy and was covered by a code of conduct?

Dr Crawley replied there is a geographical limitation to who can be chosen and that she has worked before with the Bath practitioner who is good.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
When you actually read that question, and consider EC's non-answer, it is very clear how this strategy is second-nature to these critique-deflecting scientists. In just the same way as they claim to respond to criticisms, whilst conveniently overlooking they fail to answer them ... that is exactly what EC did in this case. And was allowed to get away with it.
 
Has it ever been established in what circumstances Crawley had previously "worked before with the Bath practitioner"? It looks strange.

Would you use that form of words merely if one of your patients was also undergoing LP separately and you had cause to speak with her? It looks to be much more than that.
 
Hutan said:
There's a difference between the investigator having an expectation bias and the person being given the treatment (and their parents).

Presumably the consent process screened out the most skeptical of families. Simply being assigned to a treatment (as opposed to a control situation) would suggest that there is a higher chance of a benefit. After all, why would someone go to the trouble of a study if there was no hope at all of a benefit from the treatment?

And then I would have thought the first hour of the course would set up the kids for a pretty extreme expectation bias.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was self-selection.
If anyone is interested I did a 3-part blog on this trial, starting here.
https://johnthejack.com/2017/07/02/the-smile-trial-part-1/

I'd forgotten, but I remember now that one adult patient told me that after being persuaded to take an LP course and then not improving, they contemplated suicide.
 
ladycatlover said:
FoA to Bristol Uni to ask about



When did EC work with this practitioner before, for what reason(s), and why does she say the practitioner is "good"?

@dave30th? @JohnTheJack? I don't have the capability to do this currently as in something of a downswing.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, but I don't think it's one I'll pursue just now. Though, as always, I remain open to help anyone who does.
 
Re the LP fault assignment: "You're doing ME." It's easy to blame the little guy. What about the powers that be? No blame there, eh?

I ask, why is the LP to be kept secret? Perhaps because it may be found out to be empty? Ineffective? Nonsense? Or, is this a marketing ploy? Keep it secret, and people will clamber to find out what it's about.

It is ironic, and absurd that at least on the face of it, the LP appears to abuse children without any repercussions that we are made aware of, while authorities remove children with ME from loving, caring homes.
 


BMJ has "corrected" the Lightning Process study but has allowed its conclusions to stand, as far as I can tell. I will have more to say about this. Apparently, the authors have convinced the journal that the outcome swapping had nothing to do with the fact that the revised primary outcome had positive results: "The process has additionally involved seeking assurance from the authors that the change in primary outcome was not influenced by (positive) findings in the feasibility phase."

Everything was an innocent mistake after all!
https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2...cVC0p0ozmkjdT6bzMx9nz0XVrrfPk97Rp59e1vafba3P0

Moderator note: This post has been copied and following posts moved to a new thread:
BMJ Archives of Diseases in Childhood: ''Editor’s note on correction to Crawley et al. (2018)'', 2019, Nick Brown. (SMILE LP Trial)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom