Dear all,
I respect the members of this group and the diversity represented. I have laid my comments out just as they are and I seek answers for the greater good of patients. If I am wrong I want to hear this and why, if not are there solutions we can use to turn this tide.
Perhaps if the property to be measured Is sufficiently understood theoretically and the appropriate things were measured like does it work in comparison to something else an RCT should be doable. To me it is presumptuous to call it a valid intervention and expect healthcare and patients to pay for it unless enough is known about it to standardise and randomise, otherwise how do we know what the participants are getting?
I hear this no RCT consistently in regenerative 'medicine' they think their application is too individually tailored to measure. I see no reason they can't do the original thing over x number of patients with the same condition, offer placebo or regular standard of care to the alternate groups and measure results. As soon as I bring this up they trot out rule of rescue mythology and what would I, the cruel heartless one do if my relative was dying. they use this even though they are doing plastic surgery, orthopaedics or sports medicine.Also they make the patients pay for their so called research and parade the vulnerable patients as testimonials and say well most of medicine is not evidence based.
People die from this sloppiness and then they say about the fallen medic. he was just not operating up to a standard and they are different as there treatment is superior. They tell the patients the FDA , big Pharma or NHS is corrupt and that they are linear and unable to offer the full array of recent science. Personally I think those that use patients for shields and profit From inciting them against federal agencies are bottom feeders but I am trying to maintain some openness and not be so rigid as to exclude possible solutions
I understand some things like meaning etc are not so statistics friendly and some where such precision is required that stats are not enough but there needs to be something more than biased studies to support medical treatment.
Amy Price PhD
Empower 2 Go
Building Brain Potential
Http://empower2go.com
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Sep 2012, at 01:55 PM, "Steve Simon, P.Mean Consulting" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Patrick Burke writes:
>
> > By evaluating Chinese medicine like acupuncture with deductive logic
> > like RCTs, _we are really only saying how well it fits within that
> > way of knowing_.
>
> This is an interesting comment to make on a list about evidence based health. I'm well aware of the limitations of clinical trials, and I got a bit of flak when I wrote in my book that randomization is overrated. I have also argued quite forcefully on this list that the hierarchy of evidence is often applied too rigidly. But quite honestly, I worry about what people have in mind when they talk about other ways of knowing.
>
> If you propose that acupuncture might be evaluated without RCTs, what did you have in mind? And would that method of evaluation apply only to acupuncture, or would it be an appropriate way of evaluating traditional medicine as well.
>
> To ask the question in a different way, should acupuncture have a different standard of proof than, say, the use of beta blockers. If so, why?
>
> Steve Simon, [log in to unmask], Standard Disclaimer.
> Sign up for the Monthly Mean, the newsletter that
> dares to call itself average at www.pmean.com/news
>
|