 |
 |
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Probably your bedtime now in Oz so look forward to tomorrow Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce- Australia <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:55 PM Subject: Re: Ultrasound and Electro discussions > Hi Kevin > > > > Dear Bruce > > I really enjoyed your last answer. Few things have made me smile so broadly > in the last month; a great start to the day. > > > > I am glad I can bring some light and happiness into what is otherwise a > dull life. :) > > > > > > To say you have no strong feelings for MT or electro, you have some pretty > negative language regarding US. 'Money grabbing quacks', > > > > > Quacks was a reference to real money grabbing quacks that used electro in > the last two centuries......as I said, go and read the history of electro, > and see if you can see any similarities to the present. If we forget the > past, we repeat it. > > > > > > and these poor > useless physios holding on to the scientifically dubious, 'money dependent' > technologies, well it sounds to me that you do have a strong feeling on this > one. Two questions. > > > > > > well Kevin, if you had to apply US 5 times a week for half an hour to get a > result equivalent to the application of RICuE, would you? > probably not, cos patients wouldn't part with $150 a week for it.... > so you tell me if it is money grabbing or not. remember most of your pro US > papers say that this is the sort of dose required to get a significant > result. and RICE gets a sognificant result.....that is already proven. so > why not use RICE. > > and no papers have ever compared US to RICE. so you tell me why you are > using US. > > > > > > > Name a therapy you use that has been scientifically validated. > > > > > > > RICE, heat, active movement...... > > > > > > > > Yes this is > the nebulous type of phrase which is used on the list all the time as if > some therapies have a great validation and some do not. Physio, EBM and life > are grey and when I referred previously to a childlike attitude (not in > yourself, generally) I meant in the ability to only see things in black and > white. So I look forward to your answer as most of us know, philosophically > it is easier to disprove than prove, hence how these debates rumble on and > on. > > > > > > > > > > yes Kevin, things are grey.....but why smoke and make it worse.....after > all you are suppose to have a scientific background. which presumably > precludes you from espousing aura reading, faith healing, and ..... > electromagic.... > > > > > > > > > > > Second question why is it that you do not rate US because of its lack of > scientific validity, but will not abandone MT until someone proves to you it > doesn't work?. This appears to me to be a major shifting of the goal posts. > > > > > > > > as I said, there is no consensus of clinical studies disproving manual > therapy. > > > > > > > > > I look forward to your response. > > > > > > > So when you reply, tell me why you specifically favour US, when smarter > people than you who have spent more time examining the literature in a > methodical manner state that the evidence suggests it does not work. > > why do you feel so compelled to hold onto US?