There are over a dozen people involved with this, disregarding them all because of one controversial incident with one of them feels a bit extreme. In terms of methodology it does not strike me as very Ouija boardy as all patient input is in the form of Yes/No responses [0];
> We also validated the Yes/No responses in a question paradigm, in which the answers were assumed to be known to the patient.
> Finally, in an auditory speller paradigm, the patient could select letters and words using the previously trained Yes/No approach.
As somebody working in the German medical sector, I'm also pretty certain that the BfArM ain't casually greenlighting scam brain surgeries/implants. Nor am I sure how any of the researchers are supposed to scam the patient, or their family, with this?
> We also validated the Yes/No responses in a question paradigm, in which the answers were assumed to be known to the patient.
> Finally, in an auditory speller paradigm, the patient could select letters and words using the previously trained Yes/No approach.
As somebody working in the German medical sector, I'm also pretty certain that the BfArM ain't casually greenlighting scam brain surgeries/implants. Nor am I sure how any of the researchers are supposed to scam the patient, or their family, with this?
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28859-8