Propeller Head Plaza

Re: "Of course things have eventually to be proved to the satisfaction of the majority of people"

80.177.28.171

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

May Belt

(M)

In Reply to: "Of course things have eventually to be proved to the satisfaction of the majority of people" posted by tunenut on March 27, 2007 at 13:12:50:

Which story do you want, tunenut ?
The story of our work on improving the sound of hearing aids 22 years ago (and the story of the discoveries leading up to that) is well known - correction - is well known to the people who are interested ?
The story of the blind trials carried out at one of the largest teaching hospitals in the UK ?
The story of the results of those blind trials ?
The story of how members of the 'peer group' ( people of equal status in the medical profession) deciding that they preferred (to safeguard their professional reputation) to hide behind the parapets to avoid the arrows of ridicule ?
Which of the numerous stories, over the past 25 years, would you like ?
Regards,
May Belt.

Follow Ups:

I would be interested to read descriptions of the blind tests and results - tunenut 06:03:19 03/28/07 (2)
I don't care whatever reactions others had. Can you provide a link where your work was published? Thank you.
- Re: I would be interested to read descriptions of the blind tests and results - May Belt 12:07:38 03/28/07 (1)
  I do not have the articles which I think you would like. I do not have published details of the blind trials results nor do I have articles published in scientific journals because the full set of blind trials were never completed. But in 1986 (21 years ago) I wrote a paper describing our work up to that date - and this article - "Challenging the Conventional" 1986 Paper - May Belt - is available to read on our home page and describes that particular period.
  http://www.belt.demon.co.uk
  I will explain why the blind trials were never completed.
  The Chief Technician of the hospital's audiology department was asked by the ENT consultant to carry out some blind trials on the techniques for 'treating' hearing aid batteries I had described to them. One early advantage (which unfortunately later turned out to be the Achilles heel) was that the Chief Technician was interested in audio and loved listening to music at home so this enabled him to overcome his initial reluctance to do any trials and also because of Peter's reputation as someone who manufactured 'state of the art' audio equipment. The results of the blind trials were as described in my paper - over 75 % of the patients taking part in the trials recorded an improvement in the sound of their hearing aids when using a 'treated' battery !! Because the hearing aid batteries are tiny and fiddly and because each time when a new battery would have to be fitted, it would have to be similarly 'treated', we decided that the next set of blind trials would be to see if Peter could 'treat' the actual plastic case of the hearing aid, giving one single treatment to the actual hearing aid itself and to see if untreated batteries could then be used without any deterioration in the beneficial effect.
  The Chief technician's interest in audio meant that he was also a reader of the Hi Fi magazines of that time and, in one of these magazines in the mid 1980s, there appeared an article by Jonathan Kettle entitled "Beyond the Fringe" where amongst other things, Jonathan described something which Peter Belt had sent to a number of journalists to try. Jonathan explained that he had not actually tried it because he could not understand how it could possibly work but, nevertheless, decided to include it in the list of things which he, Jonathan, regarded as "Beyond the Fringe". After reading this article the Chief Technician was somewhat reluctant to continue with any trials but I managed to persuade him otherwise.
  But, now comes the part where the Achilles heel really comes into the story. Just as we were completing work on a 'treatment' for the actual hearing aid itself and preparing for the next set of blind trials J. Gordon Holt's infamous article appeared in Stereophile where, at the end, J. Gordon Holt refers to Peter as a 'charlatan'. That was it, after the Chief Technician read that article - that was the last straw !! There was no way that any Chief Technician, with an ounce of sense, with a professional reputation to uphold, would want to be seen to be associating with someone who was being described as a 'charlatan' and who earlier had been included in a "Beyond the Fringe" list !! And, our Chief Technician was no exception !! So, it became a case of "Oh, we are now too busy to do any further trials".
  During a discussion recently on the Stereophile forum I was taken to task by someone who accused me of being disparaging to the medical profession because 'I should be aware that they are extremely dedicated people'. OF COURSE THEY ARE !! No one would dispute that. But they are also human beings as anxious as the next person not to be at risk of being ridiculed, particularly within a professional context !!
  So, we decided that if we were going to face such resistance from a so called 'peer group' and it was going to be difficult (and extremely slow) going down that path, then we might as well describe how people can do the treatment for themselves and then it would be generally available.
  Which we did !! What happened then ? Well, surprise, surprise, we are criticised for not going down the 'peer group review' path !!!!!!
  Regards,
  May Belt.
  - thank you for your response - tunenut 14:22:03 03/28/07 (0)
    In contrast to others who may post here, I get a good feeling that you are interested in real testing and sincerely trying to verify your observations. Also, I very much appreciate that you suggest things that are free, that you don't make money on. I will certainly read your account when time permits. Certainly a blind trial is a big step in the right direction of controlling extraneous variables.
    It is not unusual in the world of science for people to become personally offended when their experiments or results are questioned. In the ideal world, nothing would be taken personally, because people are supposedly trying to collaborate in learning about the world. If one peer notices a potential flaw in an experiment, that ideally should be taken as helpful rather than as an attack. That's what peer review is really supposed to be about. It's a good system when it works.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.