New posting Rule, double-blindPosted by Scott R on 2/21/04 at 08:06 (144903)
To keep me out of legal trouble let me make a new rule: do not post anything that presents as fact that one machine is better than another. I agree with elliott that a claim cannot be made unless the machines are directly compared with a substantial study group, including placeabo, although i consider any ESWT study that claims double-blind to be suspect since the treatment group can feel the shockwave pain and vibrations in their bone (personal experience) even if there is anesthesia, at least with high-energy. And the doctor can feel the vibrations also. But double-blind is not always or maybe even usually required for something to be valid science, but it is a way to help keep pharmaceuticals in control of american medicine by keeping the little guys with great cures out of the FDA game. For example, if i have two identical skin injuries, and i cover the one that appears possibly worse with a band-aid and keep it constantly moist with neosporin and let the other one air-dry. It's certainly not double-blind. Now if it takes the neosporin side 3 days to heal completely and the dry side 10 days, what's the probability that neosporin is better than dry? Any sane person would conclude there is a very high probability that neosporin is better even if the test is done only once on one person. The FDA would concede nothing. But i guess there's probably some protocol medical journals follow that seperate objectively measureable outcomes as opposed to patient or doctor judgement so that only the later situations require double-blind (as in ESWT).
I got blisters from ice skating in both heels. The left side is neosporin. First pic is 2 days after injury, the second pic about a week. In the most imnportant first 24 hours i had left both of them dry, so the neosporin works better than this shows. It's porbably just keeping them moist that helps, but the neosporin is to prevent infection due to keeping it moist.