PDA

View Full Version : The scope of non surgical treatments



flerc
07-16-2010, 12:48 PM
What should I take into account?

flerc
07-17-2010, 02:29 PM
Hudger, you said: 'Use the research to inform your opinion about choosing doctors, but do *not* use it to ignore standard treatment advice from the doctor you've selected.'

Are you referring only to doctors, or health professionals?

hdugger
07-17-2010, 03:29 PM
Hudger, you said: 'Use the research to inform your opinion about choosing doctors, but do *not* use it to ignore standard treatment advice from the doctor you've selected.'

Are you referring only to doctors, or health professionals?

That may be too complicated a question for me :)

For myself, I tend to evaluate health professionals on results. So, if they routinely suggest things which improve my health, I tend to follow their advice. That's much harder to measure, though, with scoliosis which seems to advance and stabilize with no seeming rhyme or reason.

In this case, I'd tend to defer to a physician with deep knowledge of scoliosis who seemed to know what they were doing over any other health professional. If my massage therapist, who's been a great help for my son, recommended something which our doctor advised against, I'd go with what my doctor said (although I'd probably push a little bit to understand the rationale).

So far, none of our health professional have been in disagreement. Noone wants to operate on my son, while his curve is stable and he's not in pain, and everyone thinks he should stay active and do some stretching and exercise.

flerc
07-18-2010, 10:03 AM
Thanks hdugger. I could say Im not receiving any help from doctors to decide what to do. For instance, if I ask them what to do for regenerate disks showing them some researches, they not tell me nothing.
If your doctor says you something, please let me know.

flerc
07-18-2010, 01:31 PM
The point is science does not require belief, it requires evidence. Nobody has to believe any elite scientists nor should they. They should look at the evidence themselves and not blindly believe any scientific claim. They are required to understand the evidence if they want to deny it though and have scientific reasons for doing so.

Sharon, do you believe that is fool or insane to believe that something could be truth without evidence?

Pooka1
07-18-2010, 02:26 PM
Sharon, do you believe that is fool or insane to believe that something could be truth without evidence?

No of course not. Evidence may be produced at any point (though some things can be ruled out as violating physical law and such).

But for most things you can't prove a negative. I can't prove invisible purple wombats on the far side of Pluto are not controlling the stock market in undetectable ways. That doesn't mean there are good reasons to suspect that is the case.

Also, we have some cases where people have been looking at a question for decades and decades and despite well controlled studies still haven't shown it is effective. Those are not disproven but are less likely in my opinion because people have been trying to study it. Bracing DOESN'T fall directly into this category (for lack of good controlled studies) and I would not be shocked if it was shown to work in certain populations of kids. Things like Schroth may always be an open question because I doubt they will ever run a controlled study. I think the degree of difficulty of showing that bracing or PT is effective very very high and I would be genuflecting in the general direction of the person who shows it. That would be an extreme feat of scientific prowess that should garner much recognition.

We also have treatments that are devised by people with no relevant training who make all sorts of claims without a lick of evidence and not knowing how a useful scientific study is conducted. Those are not disproven but they really haven't even left the starting gate in my opinion.

flerc
07-18-2010, 04:37 PM
No of course not. Evidence may be produced at any point (though some things can be ruled out as violating physical law and such).

But for most things you can't prove a negative. I can't prove invisible purple wombats on the far side of Pluto are not controlling the stock market in undetectable ways. That doesn't mean there are good reasons to suspect that is the case.

Also, we have some cases where people have been looking at a question for decades and decades and despite well controlled studies still haven't shown it is effective. Those are not disproven but are less likely in my opinion because people have been trying to study it. Bracing DOESN'T fall directly into this category (for lack of good controlled studies) and I would not be shocked if it was shown to work in certain populations of kids. Things like Schroth may always be an open question because I doubt they will ever run a controlled study. I think the degree of difficulty of showing that bracing or PT is effective very very high and I would be genuflecting in the general direction of the person who shows it. That would be an extreme feat of scientific prowess that should garner much recognition.

We also have treatments that are devised by people with no relevant training who make all sorts of claims without a lick of evidence and not knowing how a useful scientific study is conducted. Those are not disproven but they really haven't even left the starting gate in my opinion.

Thanks Sharon, I think I agree in what you are saying.

I think that is logic to believe that some treatment (or some variation of anyone) could help, even if not exists significant evidence yet, if we have some knowledge about the problem, and the treatment is supported over a theory that seems to be reasonablet for us, or better, to people with more knowledge.
The opposite would be also logic: We could believe that some treatment (or some variation of one) could help, even if there not exists a reasonable theory supporting it, but significant evidence exists.

So I think the only 2 ways to discredit a treatment (or variation) are :
1) Even it could be supported over an apparently great theory, significantly and clear evidence suggest that it never worked can be showed.
2) Showing clear inconsistencies in the theory supporting it or an absence of it, when there are not significant evidence yet that it worked once.