Science Based v. Results Based Treatments for Chronic Idiopathic Symptoms

Discussion in 'Your Living Room' started by Henrysullivan, May 21, 2010.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    It seems June agrees with my previous post about determining the illness before the cure. Why is henry and studio34 not addresing this? Without the known common starting point, anecdotal and scientic evidence can not be determined accurately or hold water.

    The problem with anecdotal evidence is it can be presented quite like a testimonial. When you present only the people it has helped, it sounds great to some people and also can give the impression of snake oil to others. How many people has the treatment helped and how many has it not helped, that is the statistical data that is more convincing even if it is anecdotal or dare I say pseudoscience (I don't like that term really). Thats a fact that some people have to accept and in turn expect naysayers and critcal assessments of their statements.
     
  2. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    The alternative is then jumping to conclusions?

    In the context of drug research and invasive procedures that is the only effective method. Otherwise you can volunteer to try all the drugs they are developing. Results first, methods second, when your wiener drops off from one of those drugs you will then probably prefer method first, results second.

    Research scientists are not stopping anyone from trying anything on there own. If you want to sell it no one is stopping you but you'll have to present it better than a shamwow commercial.

    Let me know if there are any NUCCA practicioners that want to treat me for free. I'll definitely try it!
    Isn't the chiro community funding studies as we speak?
     
  3. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    You're absolutley right about this Mr Man and I completely agree with everything you've said so far. Right on target. This thread has really grown in my short absence. Will return soon. An excellent discussion here and glad to see everyone avoiding personal digs.
     
  4. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    An excellent point, and I think everyone here should rule out vitamin D deficiency AND B12 deficiency.


    However, I would like to remind everyone that more than one cause of symptoms may exist, and since Henry's explanation of how upper cervical misalignment can cause MM symptoms is plausible, and since many people here have had good results from chiropractic/NUCCA care, I think that ought to be ruled out as well.
     
  5. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Ah, but when you do nothing, MM symptoms GRADUALLY go away.

    When you do something, like a chiropractic adjustment, and symptoms INSTANTLY disappear, that's obviously different. That was my experience (for tinnitus only, as my other symptoms disappeared with JOH regimen/treatment for vitamin deficiencies), and that was Henry's and that was his wife's. I believe that there are also many similar reports on Henry's thread.

    Why on earth would anyone dismiss that?
     
  6. sirlanc

    sirlanc New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Why not simply list down all possible non-risky treatments and try them one by one? That is what I did, then I found a combination of treatments that stopped my attacks at least for now. I mean we make 99% of our decisions in life not based on proof but based on the best alternative we have in front of us. Based on my extensive research of clinical trials, there is not even one proven treatment for MD other than cutting the nerve which does seem to stop vertigo in 95% of the cases but has some risk associated with it.
     
  7. Funshine

    Funshine New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Science is advanced through a process called the scientific method. Period. It has been that way for many years. It is a process that is adhered to in the scientific community and through this process individuals are credentialed and educated, studies are performed, results are published and presented at conferences, and eventually, because of this process science is advanced to the next level.
    Antecdotal testimonals are pseudoscience and are not accepted because it is not part of the scientific method.
    Anyone who would like to have their theories tested and proven by stipulating a hypothesis and developing a study is welcome to advance their education, become credentialed, such as earn a PhD, and author a study based on your theory and hypothesis.
    It is a slow process but one that is earned through years of study.
    Or if you chose you can take the alternative, do it yourself route, and maybe you will get lucky and you can insist that you have some sort of evidence that is even better than the results obtained through the scientific method.
    I do not think that you can debate the two worlds as they are in two totally different realms. It would be an exhaustive undertaking as evidenced by the length of some of these responces.
    Never the twain shall meet.
     
  8. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Regarding those ideas I emboldened, by virtue of using this website as a clearing house, there is more good research being done right here regarding the successful treatment of Meniere's symptoms than in medical science as a whole for the last 100 years. We have treatments that are shown to really work in substantial populations of the sufferers in question. Medical science has salt-free diets and diuretics. And if that doesn't work, they have invasive surgery. But there are people here through their own desperate efforts who have in fact cured whatever variety of Meniere's they had. Medical science has been officially notified of this, and as of yet medical science has turned a blind eye. So if medical science ever uses anecdotal information to set up studies that conform to their protocals, this would be a great time to do it. I don't see that happening. Very few medical science researchers are interested for a non-medical solution to Meniere's. That seems plain. Scott, at least so far, is not interested in non-medical solutions for MAV, a condition he suffers greatly from. At some point, that kind of an attitude become science for science's sake, rather than for the sake of solving mankind's problems. What value that?

    Ignoring certain real 'break through' experiences, such as certain one's presented on this website, would be fine, except that much of this conversation is about whether these experiences, should not only be ignored, but also completely discounted by science. A major point I try to make to Scott here is that, while he might equate certain treatments like UC chiropractic or JOH to snake oil and blood letting and the like, he has no information other than that that those who have presented it give him. Who is he or medical science to dismiss this information? (Scott, I am not speaking about you behind your back, this is also to you.) Medical science can't know whether any particular report they hear is true until they put some effort to try and understand it. And there is a rub again. They show no interest in studying anything their bosses, who report to their funding institutions, do not tell them to study. So abject misery in whole populations of folks who might be helped becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    And frankly, many of the sources they do cite, such as certain ones that Scott has brought into into his discussions here, are decidely biased, and are to the goal of rousing interest by exploiting controversy. Controversy works. Folks tune in to controversy. I should know. Without really trying, much of what I post here is controversial. I just look at it as truth, because it is. If it weren't, I could not possibly keep this up for over three years, and still going strong. But because what I propose for folks to consider does not agree with many of their preconceptions, much of them which derive by work publicized by the medical science community, to a lot of folks, what I present is controversial. As a result, folks tune in. But some sources of information bring the controversy first, to bring the mouse clicks second. Mouse clicks lead to revenues. I have no such revenue stream. Therefore, any controversy my writings ignite, are much more pure and reliable to any question they explore than any that are ignited on profit-seeking, controversy-seeking websites.

    And bless Scott's heart, and I mean that. He is delighted that the folks who wrote the experiences that began the theme of this thread are well. I really believe that he is genuine in his remarks that he is an empathetic joy for folks who no longer suffer, or who have been able to substantially reduce their suffering. So he ratifies that their experiences are true, but only to a point. Not only does he not ratify the treatment that brought them to this increased state of health, but because these stories, that he ratifies as truthful, did not come to him by virtue of certain comformance to a medical science protocal, he absolutely dissmisses even the possibility that the treatments had anything to do with their recoveries.

    But in any other area of his life, I venture to say that Scott would take empiracle, perhaps anecdotal evidence and run with it. Let's say Scott is a weekend gardener. So is his neighbor. They are both growing tomatoes next to their clotheslines out the back. His neighbor's tomatoes are huge and bountiful. Scotts's are puny. So he goes to his neighbor and say, "Hey, mate, blimy, what are are you doing to get such big tomatoes?" His neighbor says, "Well, mate, I've been doing this for about 15 years and I discovered, purely by accident, that if I use a little carrot juice and sprinkle it on these tomatoes, they grow like mad. Hey Mate, I got some o' that carrot juice right here. Ya wanna try some?" What's Scott going to do? Is he going to take the advice of his neighbor who has been doing this for 15 years and has the fruit of his experience right in plain view for Scott to see? Or is Scott going to say, "Gosh, blimy, mate, I'd like to, and I agree that your tomatoes are like nuclear and all, but before I use any of that carrot juice I've got to wait until the Scott's corporation (Scott's is an American fertilizer company with a convenient name), takes the initiative to perform some double blind studies on that carrot juice before I can even believe that your tomatoes are that big because of that stuff. Until then, I'm afraid that what you've got here is just anecdotal evidence." His neighbor say, "Crimy, Scott, I've been doing this for 15 years, bloke. Look at these tomatoes, mate! My tomatoes used to be just like yours until, sheerly by accident, I dropped some of this carrot juice into my garden one day, and the friggin' tomatoes took off like they were on fire, bloke. And they've been doing that ever since--for 15 years now. And if you're waiting for the Scott's corporation to research all this, forget it, bloke, they don't sell carrot juice, so why would they even begin to study whether carrot juice will help your tomatoes grow?" So there Scott goes, back to his garden to tend to his liddle biddie tomatoes.

    So I'm having a little fun with this. But really, the story I just made up is exactly what is going on here. Right before the eyes of medical science is a leg up on how certain major populations of Meniere's sufferers could be helped, but they don't sell carrot juice. So Scott has another neighbor who's been watching all this. The second neighbor comes up to the first and says, "Hey mate, what were you and Scott talking about?" The first neighbor says, "Well, bloke, I tried to tell him how to make his tomatoes grow, and he admired my tomatoes, but he didn't want any of the stuff I use to make 'em that way." Well, mate, says the second neighbor, what is it that you use on those crimy-looking tomatoes?" The first says, "Just a little of this stuff right here, mate, a little of me morning carrot juice. I'll give you some." "Much obliged," says the second. And a month later, the second neighbor's tomatoes are big as melons. Scott see's him in the garden one day and come up asking, "Hey mate, how do you get those tomatoes to grow so big?" The second neighbor answers, "Well, bloke, our in between neighbor gave me some of his carrot juice a month ago, said it'd make me tomatoes grow big as his. So I tried it. And look at those big boys grow!" To which Scott responds, "Hey mate, I'm delighted you have such a fine garden of tomatoes, but you can't know for sure it was the carrot juice that did it without a double blind study." The second neighbor responds, "Scott, mate, I don't care about any double blind study, all I care about are results--big tomatoes. So you do the study if you want to, but before I started using this carrot juice, my tomatoes were as pitiful as yours. Now look at 'em." So again, Scott goes back to his garden to tend his puny lot of tomatoes. Next thing you know, the growing season is over, Spring leads into summer, the coldest time to imagine getting a tomato crop going. Scott lost his chance at big tomatoes for another year. Yet his neighbors have enough tomatoes to eat year 'round. They even ask Scott, who is noticeably gaunt for the lack of tomatoes, if he'd like to consider some of their carrot juice for the next growing season. And Scott says no because the Scott's sorporation still hasn't decided to study carrot juice as a growth enhancer for tomatoes. And time proceeds...
     
  9. June-

    June- New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    THat's what I was doing. I got lucky right at the top of the list. I did discuss it with my family dr who was very supportive of that approach since I had already gotten to the end of the oto's list. She encouraged me to do ONE thing at a time so I would know what was working if something did. I agree and did that but in the end I found it took TWO things(antiviral/allergy) to have the max (to date) effect. There is then another quandry. How long do you have to keep taking or doing the curing thing to keep the beast at bay. For me, the antivirals were only needed for a while, the allergy treatment I believe, based on what others tell me, will be needed for a long time, perhaps the rest of my life. I hope I can arrange that into old age.
     
  10. Butterfly

    Butterfly I will learn to fly agian.

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Henry your carrot story reminded me of something.

    What about all the medications that are originally approved to treat a certain condition but are found by accident to help with other conditions?

    Frequently medications are perscribed to help treat medical issues that they were not trailed for. One such medication that I was put on for years was papaverine. My Gp,Neurologist and Neuro surgeon have all asked me why I was on it and what did my oto believe it was going to do to help me. They did not look down on the fact that I was on it they were genuinly interested in learning about it. My oto believed it acted as a vasodialator and got more blood to my bad ear. I only had one bad ear at the time. I was on this medication for years and the first 6 months I was on it I felt a definate improvement. Most of my oto's MM patients were on this medication until they quit making it. I could of had it compounded but I can not afford to. So was the papaverine snake oil? I really dont care. I had 6 months of living instead of 6 months of suffering.

    This is not the only time I have been put on a medication that it was not originally made for a medical condition I was having. But when a Dr finds that something helps even by pure accident they use it and then the rest of the Drs at least the ones I encountered where curious about it. They didnt get upset and ask me for the scientific evidence and tell me to get off the medication. They wanted to learn.

    So Scott are you agianst this sort of situation? Again Im not trying to get into a arguement with anyone here. I try to always look for the good in everyone and I dont like conflict with a capital C!

    I have no degrees I am no expert. I just have my life experiences to go on. I just for the life of me dont understand why we can not band together and be happy that someone has found relief from their suffering no matter what the treatment. What a shame this is because we already know that not all treatments work for everyone. Wether it is medication,diet modification, supplements,Nucca, sorry if I have forgot anyone else's treatment. Their is no one shoe fits all in this senario because ie we all dont have the exact same thing wrong with us.
     
  11. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    It does not go away for all people, I"m still going, deaf, still have tinnitus and still have vertigo and fullness after seven years. I'm not dismissing it, it helps some people, however I seriously doubt they had MM. If you have menierre's disease it would not go away immediately from one chiro visit or 1000 visits, unless that visit replaces your damaged cochlea. I don't think moving a bone 1mm is going to undo a damaged inner ear.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There have been several studies of the US population. In the Framingham study, (Framingham, Mass, USA) 1.48 % of the population claimed to have a history of Meniere’s disease (Moscicki et al, 1985). This large prevalence figure likely derives from a tendency of many physicians to lump all cases of recurrent vertigo into the category of Meniere's disease (Slater, 1988)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    and so again I'm back to the same old thing again conveniently ignored by Henry. Before you make claims about NUCCA or any other treatment you have to know what you are treating.
     
  12. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    well said
    it took my otos several years of repeated visits and documentation of symptoms and attacks, surgeries and medications before they labeled it MM...and even that label has no explination or reason - the otos still do not know the cause of what is termed MM - they have thoughts and ideas but no tangible evidence - yet - that is why it is very important to donate temporal lobes - there is a national registry for those who suffer from inner ear symptoms and siorders
     
  13. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    National temboral bone registry link

    http://www.tbregistry.org/

    sorry for previous grammar - i am tired and dyslexic
     
  14. egross

    egross New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    If only scientists could create an imaging machine that's powerful enough to take images of the inner ear since none existing can penetrate the temporal bone. CT scans, MRI's, and x-ray machines cannot. Hopefully someday they will and that would greatly help in the diagnosis of vestibular disorders/diseases. Now the only way to truly confirm an MM diagnosis is to wait till someone diagnosed with MM dies and had offered their inner ear to science.
     
  15. Butterfly

    Butterfly I will learn to fly agian.

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Great link Aladdin I didnt even know this exsisted. Thank you
     
  16. hollymm

    hollymm Me, 'in' a tree.

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Hey, I know for fact that if you drink a liquid upside down it will get rid of the hiccups! Try and we'll keep count of how many it works for and how mnay it doesn't. Remember, you have to have the hiccups first...
     
  17. June-

    June- New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Do you have a loved one hang you by your heels?
     
  18. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Okay start a poll :)
     
  19. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments


    Great idea in fact they can have mine right now if they want!
     
  20. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

    Excellent point, Butterfly, drugs used off label. Where do we find the medical authority for that without first fulfilling the testing requirements proving the therapudic value for those applications? Excellent point.
     

Share This Page