On 1/27/01, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< I have never found that in using techniques suggested by mulligan. Maybe we
should always question ourselves and our decision making in using a technique
before we denounce the technique as ineffective. >>
***Realising that the placebo effect may influence almost anything in human
interaction, is it possible ever to find a fairly widely used therapeutic
technique that does NOT work in a sufficient number of instances to ensure
its continued use among some individuals?
Allied to this issue is this question: "What percentage failure rate must a
given therapy display before it is generally rejected by most therapists?" or
its converse: "What percentage success rate must a given therapy display or
claim to display to ensure its acceptance and continued use?"
I am sure that there must be therapies which enjoy success in fewer than 10
percent of cases, yet they attract fanatical support from those who have been
givers or receivers of that low success rate. Under such circumstances can
science ever be really relevant or convincing? Does this mean that we have
to set up a more complete system for evaluation of therapies, including the
scientific method, evidence-based approaches and 'trial by jury'? After all,
if we invoke the powers of only one analytical modality, we are almost
guaranteed a futile, never-ending debate strongly influenced by personality,
commercialism and emotion.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
|