Originally posted by flerc
View Post
I know what I posted and why. Sharon's statement, "There is no evidence any conservative treatment has prevented any surgery" may well be a true statement even though it may not be true. It doesn't mean that I agree with the statement. Look at Tamztom's thread. He appears to be helping his daughter nonsurgically. However, from a scientific standpoint ONE CASE is not enough "evidence". To prove something, as I have stated, it needs to be predictably reproducible. Tom's method may only work on HIS daughter, or it may only work on kids with JIS before their growth spurt, etc... Those are the variables that researchers would sort out before applying Tom's "therapy" to every child out there with idiopathic scoliosis. It's the way the scientific community works. There are rules that have to be followed in order to make a legitimate claim that a particular therapy works. You CAN'T prove that "any" conservative will work or fail. It's too vague. For example:
1. taking a bath every day will cure scoliosis.
2. eating a vegan diet will cure scoliosis.
3. standing under a full moon for three consecutive months will cure scoliosis.
.
.
.
n. standing on one foot while jumping up and down will cure scoliosis.
My point here is that there are an infinite number of things that can be "claimed" to cure scoliosis. Researchers need to investigate specific claims. All of these ridiculous claims I just made up would fall under the category of "conservative treatment". You know as well as I do that these things are bogus. However, there may be people out there that would believe that stuff. The claims that researchers are interested in researching have to meet certain criteria. That is WHY you can't say, "Prove that any alternative treatment could not help scoliosis." or however you worded it. It's too broad, and that's exactly why I defended Sharon's statement. You have to be specific about the treatment. You have to collect meaningful data to support the claim. Then you have to be able to reproduce your findings on a large random sample. Then you have to do it again. Sharon's argument was that non-mainstream practitioners do not collect such data and can not back up their claims. I have to agree that if someone is not willing to collect the data on successes and failures, then there may be something to hide OR they just aren't interested in fitting into the scientific community. Either way, if a treatment is not studied and doesn't meet the criteria for "proof", then it can't be endorsed by institutions such as Medical Associations. It doesn't mean that the treatment never works. It means that there is no "evidence" that it works.
Anyway, Flerc, I'm going to leave it at that. You misunderstand me and that's okay. I'm trained in the sciences and am just trying to explain how it works. I'm sorry if I offended you by not defending you to Sharon. In this case, SCIENTIFICALLY, her statement was correct whether it is true or false. If I thought surgery were my only solution, I would be fighting to have it done and I'm not.
I don't know why you are avoiding the topic of treatments for your daughter. It makes me question why the topic of your thread upsets you so, especially if you are not employing any alternative methods in trying to get your daughter well. I wish her all the best.
Comment