It does appear that practitioners using unproven methods have a lot to loose from proper evidence as it might just show that what they are selling to the unsuspecting public has no real value, or might even be harmful and they would be at risk of loosing their livelihood. As lots of "alternative" practitioners make a good living out of selling "hope" (which might be false hope) they have nothing to gain from evidence of effectiveness and will resist therefore proper scientific evaluation of their methods. Evidence is their enemy
As patients, or parents of patients, we are in the exactly opposite position as with the wide range of treatmentoptions on the table, and knowing that time doesn't work in our favour, we need the best available evidence to decide which treatment to choose. we cannot afford to loose time on something what at best makes no difference and at worse could make things worse. Evidence is our friend (although it can be a very harsh and painfully honest friend, like any good friend should be)
Two guiding principles;
1) Lack of evidence of benefit= lack of evidence of potential harmfulness
2) False hope = worse than no hope (whilst providing a good income to the practitioner dealing in it)
As patients, or parents of patients, we are in the exactly opposite position as with the wide range of treatmentoptions on the table, and knowing that time doesn't work in our favour, we need the best available evidence to decide which treatment to choose. we cannot afford to loose time on something what at best makes no difference and at worse could make things worse. Evidence is our friend (although it can be a very harsh and painfully honest friend, like any good friend should be)
Two guiding principles;
1) Lack of evidence of benefit= lack of evidence of potential harmfulness
2) False hope = worse than no hope (whilst providing a good income to the practitioner dealing in it)
Comment