 |
 |
Hi Kevin Dear Bruce You have made a number of assumptions, inferences and half statements I need to have them clarified. 1 .Inference; My life is not dull, and your suggestion that it is, is borderline rude. Usually people resort to this when they are on the ropes. > I really enjoyed your last answer. Few things have made me smile so broadly > in the last month; a great start to the day. Kevin, in Australia, I would take this comment as an anaemic attempt at high brow sarcasm, and have met enough poms to know it would be the same in England. If you didn't mean it sarcastically, then to state that my comments brighten up your day so, is pretty convincing in itself that nothing else interesting is happening in your life. Anyway, enough of this. Let's be nice. 2. Inference; my knowledge of electro history is shaky, No I am reasonably well read and my BSc Hons dissertation was on this subject. So no need for the revision thanks all the same. Well I am surprised that you are so open to current electro practice if you are familiar with its dark history and share no concern about the similarities of what drove it then and now. 3 Assumption; I rarely use US, perhaps 5 applications a year at most, I am relatively unconvinced by its claims, work in the English NHS and have no need to take $150 dollars off anyone. It is your clinical reasoning processes I am interested in not the US debate. Oh ok, so why not just come onto the newsgroup and say "I am relatively unconvinced by its claims" The therapy decisions you make and the treatments you give are funded by the tax payer...someone pays for the treatment eventually, and if it is ineffective or unnecessary, then the opportunity cost will approach $150, and other patients don't get seen until later, which is contributing to the unsustainability of the NHS. As usual, the public get the bum deal. And this is why I feel strongly about finding truth, and weeding out "machines that go ping" as M. Python once said. 4. Half Statement; Ok rice, heat and active movement in your opinion has a good scienfific validation. Lets have the evidence, discuss the processes, paper, methodology strengths and weaknesses etc. We have to determine how strong this validation is to understand why it is so superior the the US evidence. The evidence is in the literature. Why don't you go and find the peer reviewed consensus of opinion that refutes RICE and heat. 5. I don't understand your statement with regard to the aura stuff and scientific background. Science is the creation and testing of ideas not a restrictive dogma where one methodology is king and everything outside is crass. Things like RCT SSED etc are just the imperfect tools to answer the questions. If done in a poor or inappropriate way they have no value. Scientists should have enquiring minds not aggressively dismissive. Read the literature in the field of psychology and psychophysiology, and contact "English Skeptics". 6. Assumption. One last time I have no need to cling to US you could take it out of my dept tomorrow and I wouldn't blink an eye. Therefore I do not need to tell you why I cling to it. We are discussing reasoning/EBM/clinical effectiveness, surely this and not a who will win the anti/pro US debate. So on what scientific basis would you remove US from your dept? What evidence do you have to deprive the English public from receiving a commonly used physical therapy treatment? And as someone so passionate about EBM, I'd like to know what treatments you do perform. Probably your bedtime now in Oz so look forward to tomorrow Kevin Kevin, you have to find something better to do with your downtime if you look forward to my responses, as I have stuff to do that is better than getting into extended repetitive exchanges... :)