Henry,
That's indeed a good question: why did the US work in the two studies, in
not in the other 8? Being totally honest here, I haven't used it for years
because I don't believe in it, and actually I'm too busy to figure out why
that was. Maybe the proponents of US?? Go ahead, guys, we can always be
convinced with good (scientific) arguments!
You said:
"I would be cautious in saying that something that has not been proven to
work we can still use - things such as Bowen Therapy and reiki have not
undergone strict RCT studies, but should we still use this??".
Scientifically speaking, there is no argument to not use it. Unless it has
been proven that it does not make a lot of difference compared to natural
history, or to substantially more economic treatments. What is however
forbidden in my opinion is to advertise it as a method that will work in
just a couple of treatments, without scientific foundation to substantiate
such a claim. And that is being done (too much) on their web site, if you
ask me.
Personally, I wouldn't use it (Bowen) because in my experience manual
methods don't work very well in chronic complaints (in acute complaints, on
the other hand, everything seems to work.....). It also seems to me as a
cheaply designed copy of shiatsu massage.
As for Reiki (and in fact also for Bowen): who knows? Maybe it works, maybe
it
doesn't. I personally can't use it, if I don't wanna loose my credibility.
Besides that, I've found good methods already. I don't like to change a
winning team, and certainly not back to a (predominantly) manual method. (In
fact, I don't work in any practice anymore right now; I''ve gone back
to -almost- full time personal study: EB orthopaedic medicine in all its
facets.)
The only thing I'd want to say to founders and teachers of irregular
therapies: if you're convinced that your method works better than the
regular methods: Go And Prove It. If you don't wanna do that however, while
you're still making a lot of money out of it, you're not very trustworthy in
my mind.
R.,
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Tsao" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: woensdag 22 augustus 2001 1:49
Subject: Re: ultrasound
Frank,
I understand your point, but I guess where I am coming from is that the
majority of RCT's on U/S show significantly no effect. However, we have to
ask ourselves the question, why are there a small proportion of RCT's that
do show some significant effect if it doesn't work?? Is there something that
we have forgotten to take into account between these studies?? I think this
is an important question to ask ourselves, and not just take the article for
what it has to say.
>There is a big difference between matters not having been proven to work,
>and matters having been proven to not work. The first we can still use
>(things do not have to be proven to work, for them to work), but the second
>is not exactly a credit to our profession, in my opinion.
***I sort of agree with you. But I think there is also a difference between
proof and effectiveness. U/S has been proven not to have an true effect in
human subjects according to this study, but some time it does seem to have
an effect. Best example is subacute tennis elbow - U/S 1.5 W/cm2 and retest
their grip strength - it is amazing the improvement(this and subacute ankle
sprains are about the only time I use the U/S). I would be cautious in
saying that something that has not been proven to work we can still use -
things such as Bowen Therapy and reiki have not undergone strict RCT
studies, but should we still use this?? (Now I will probably have these
therapists lash out something at me :o
As I said, I am not tending towards or against U/S. I went through a uni
where a whole year was devoted to electrotherapy (and I hated it!). I just
think we have to be selective, like all techniques, in their application.
Very winding but sunny day 15 degrees in early morning Brisbane,
Henry***
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|