SCOTT RPosted by Dorothy on 5/28/04 at 02:48 (151450)
Any policies or thoughts on this message: Message #151442 from Larry W??
Re: SCOTT REd Davis, DPM on 5/28/04 at 10:57 (151470)
I beleive we have let the 'Treatments' board become the board for 'all' treatments including alternative medicine. You have noted from our discussions that I do practice a form of 'integrative' medicine. Drawing the line between which alternative treatments have merit and should be 'integrated' and which should not can be tricky at times and difficult for the public. Scott has no board for 'alternative medicine.' The Germans, via Komission E have made a reasonable attempt to quantify which non-drug substances have merit. Some stuff is far out, to the point that it requires a huge leap of faith.
On the other hand we have those, such as Rachel Buchbinder (see ESWT page) who simply will not accept anything that does not have a massive expenditure of 'scientific' research. Ultimately, practitioners will rely primarily on a combination of patient experiences, the cumulative experiences of other practitioners in the same specialty and the scientific literature. The literature, albeit proliferative, simply covers much too small a percentage of what we encounter in clincial practice.
Re: SCOTT Rscott r on 5/28/04 at 12:11 (151478)
as i have stated many times, i don't respond to requests that do not include a link to the URL of the post in question. Message numbers are not enough. i found the post, and have thoughts, but i don't want to break this long-standing policy.
Re: SCOTT Rscott r on 5/28/04 at 12:13 (151479)
PS, for me to see a message 'scottr' without a space between scott and r should be in the post somewhere.
Re: SCOTT Rjohn h on 5/29/04 at 10:57 (151538)
Ed the practice of medicine is an 'Art' is it not?
Re: SCOTT REd Davis, DPM on 6/01/04 at 16:53 (151728)
It truly is. It is multifaceted with numerous variables which can be difficult to reproduce experimentally. Those who take a 'hard core,' give me the scientific proof first approach will only be practicing at the 'margins' of the art since so much is truly unproven. The entire 'jist' of Buchbinder's article is a critique of the lack of evidence behind a lot of the PF treatments. Much of what we do is based on an understanding of physics, physiology and the combined experiences of thousands of practitioners treating millions of patients in the aggregate. It would be a wonderful world if the clinicians dictated exactly what they wanted studied.
If you don't study something, you can offer limited proof and the impetus to study or not can be political. How long has the schism between chiropractic and allopathic medicine existed without anyone launching studies to validate or invalidate the claims of chiropractic. One would think that with millions of people visiting chiropractors each year, there would be some impetus to study those modalities or subjecting them to scientific method. Why has that not been done? My answer -- politics!