Science Based v. Results Based Treatments for Chronic Idiopathic Symptoms

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

I know that you are being hit with alot. And I do not mean to overwhelm you time-wise, as I do know that we all have limited time here. I'll be back at work in the morning myself and this is a work day for you already. So after this, I will drop back and let you catch up with me. But I wanted to paste an 'anecdote' that just came in, indicating certain results, into this thread.

R____ does not post here. She read my original post in the Database and immediately contacted me via PM. She has been suffering with dizziness and vertigo for the last six months. She went to her local NUCCA office and this is what I received from her Friday night:

Hi Hank,

I just returned from my NUCCA chiro a couple of hours ago. What an
amazing experience that was. I have no idea if its my imagination, but
right now, my ears are open and the pain is about 80% less. The fullness
is gone. ...
Will this last? It seems to good to be true.

She worked on me quite a bit and then took more X-rays to ensure her
adjustment worked. You are right, there is much precision with this
method. She was doing everything very carefully and making sure
everything was perfect from the adjustment to the X-rays. My NUCCA
lady wants to see me again Monday and Wednesday next week. I will need
to go to her twice a week for at least the first month or so. There is
maintenance after that, but I'm not sure right now how often she wants
me to come in. She told me this is where the healing process begins and
every day I will feel a little better. She told me to be careful of any
lifting, heavy work, or falls. I am to take it easy especially for the
first thirty days.

I'm not dizzy per say, but I noticed walking feels a little strange. I
feel a little unbalanced. She told me its because she just moved my
center of gravity. She told me this shouldn't last and that my body
should acclimate fairly quickly.

Hank, I am so happy that I came across your post and tried this
approach. I am so grateful to you for providing me with the information
about the nearest NUCCA to where I lived. I was shocked when you did
that and wondered how you managed that from a different state.
...

Take care and God bless,

Now R___ is not out of the woods by any stretch. No, she must continue here until her neck gets fixed. I have spoke with her on the phone. She is a real person, one who would be glad to correspond with you to prove it. And my point is not whether she will be cured of her symptoms. I expect that she will. But the point is that, to medical research R___ is just a number on a page of data. As I said from the outset, science can be dehumanizing. Underneath each statistic on a page of medical science research data is someone who is suffering, someone like R___, someone like all the folks here who suffer, someone like you as a matter of fact. And that is why, while we need science, we also need science to realize that the goal is not for science to be correct and proven beyond a statistical doubt. No, the goal is for folks to receive relief from their suffering. THAT is the goal here. So how best to do that? I say that we need both science and results-based approaches. And the folks who work in these parallel disciplines need to respect one another, like you and I are doing here. And they need to work togther, again, like you and me, and all the others who are taking part here. That is because we all have invaluable life experience, which includes our education, from which the truth can be determined. But it will only be determined IF we all work together.

You have the floor.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Can you contact her and and tell me if she has cervical vertigo or Meniere's?

Thanks!

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

I've seen her. She plays fo the Knicks, doesn't she?



Actually, she looks to be in pretty good adjustment. She'll never have compressed discs, I'll tell you that!

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Does anybody know what happened to the original thread this one began from? I wanted to reread something in it posted by Hank and I was told it was off limits? What's the story? Was it deleted? Why? Seriously puts me off writing anything if these sorts of discussions are going to "disappear".

S

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

I expect that the title and initial purpose is what got it out of here. I expect it still lives, albeit in the CBS vault along with re-runs of Amos and Andy. (Aussie's might have to look that one up. Part of being an American during the clothesline era of the 1950's that today seems less than complimentary to a certain segment of the population.)

I will PM Ray to see if there is any way to access it. But you should have no fear that anything in this thread will ever be tampered with or discarded, as long as nothing gets to a personal attack nature, which neither of us, nor any of the other participants are likely to perpetrate.

If there is any particular point that you wish for me to develop again, I am glad to do it. What were you looking for?

Like the head shot. Looks like you might be in the running for the 2011 Men of Meniere's Calendar.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

I imagine the thread was deleted because it was begun by an anonymous poster who attacked Hank personally.

If Nassman were here, he would point out (regarding the pictures) that most people don't go around holding their heads/necks perfectly straight every minute of the day. You can take a photo of pretty much anyone on the Internet and show their necks are misaligned.

I read a bit about cervical vertigo on Dr. Hain's website, and he mentioned that he does not recommend chiropractic treatments due to the increased risk of stroke to the patient. Instead, he recommends physical therapy by qualified practitioners. Hank, the issue of stroke is not something I have ever seen you discuss. Perhaps you would be interested in reading what Dr. Hain says here:

http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/central/cervical/cervical.html

I am really glad that people have found relief through NUCCA and other treatments, but there is nothing wrong with discussing the safety and effectiveness of these treatments. When my husband first took antivirals, the first thing we wanted to know was: Is this treatment safe?

No one here is above being questioned about the treatments they recommend to others. For example, I believe JOH when he says his regimen works and that people are getting relief. That is obvious from the testimonials on this site. But that doesn't mean that I would want to jump into taking a regimen of nine or more vitamins on a daily basis for the rest of my life if I found that one element of the regimen (L-Lysine, for example) was sufficient to control the symptoms of Meniere's. And even if I was convinced that L-Lysine could do the job, I would still want to read and confirm that taking this supplement on a long-term basis is safe.

Likewise, if I wanted to do NUCCA, I would first want to look into the safety of the procedure and how it compared to physical therapy and other medical approaches recommended by Dr. Hain and others.

It has nothing to do with "trusting" any particular person, even Dr. Hain.

The people on this forum are good people, and they want to help others. Like June said, the discussion should not be about personalities, but about the treatments themselves. This is not a competition to see who has the best treatment. Thank God there are options to try. Antivirals helped my husband, but he was more than willing to try other treatments as well. If we did not have such healthy/intellectual discussions on this site, there would be a lot more potential for all types of unscrupulous people to come in with a plethora of useless products to sell to people who are suffering.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

>>> Like the head shot. Looks like you might be in the running for the 2011 Men of Meniere's Calendar.

LOL. Thanks Hank but I'd gladly swap this head for one that had better wiring.

>>> Let's say I am correct and that my particular Meniere's symptoms were due to a chiropractic condition, treated appropriately by a chiropractic treatment, as opposed to a medical condition treated appropriately by medicine or surgery. That is what I mean here.

I'm glad you said "let's say I am correct" because it does sound at least like you may be open to the fact that it may not have been a chiropractic condition. Contrary to what I was told by a certain somebody here in the ghost thread, being open-minded is about being open to just that and never being so certain of anything. If new and compelling evidence comes to light a person should be open and willing to change their position.

If it were possible that neck pathology could cause Meniere's syndrome (and I most definitely don't believe this given what I know of human anatomy and of the evidence that exists) then it would be classed as a mechanical problem of the neck and something that could be fixed by anyone who understood this such as an orthopedic doctor. Science-based medicine would know this just like it understands the pro-inflammatory state and the subsequent formation of plaques that produce CVD. And because of that knowledge there is much that can be done to intervene and prevent. Chiropractors have been around for over 100 years. If there were something in it and it really worked, it would have been adopted a very long time ago and be main stream. If it works, it's medicine. The idea that there is "alternative medicine makes no sense whatsoever. Alternative to what? Something that works?

Indeed, when there is neck pathology of other sorts there is a whole science in physiotherapy that can deal with aspects of it as well. Even if all that you say about the neck being "misaligned" could bring this about then why wouldn't a physiotherapist or orthopedic specialist work with these same principles? It's not logical Hank. And what about all the millions of people in the world who are not perfectly aligned but have no symptoms of anything? I would bet if I took a random sample of 100 people off the streets of Sydney and subjected them all to a neck x-ray you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with perfect alignment. And you'd find people with "out of shape" cervical spines who had no complaints at all. Just look at that picture posted by Jim ... you'd think that woman would have more problems than you could shake a stick at. The human body is not perfect. As we age, we all show signs of degeneration in the spine. It's a normal process. There are just too many variables and holes in your hypothesis – and no real evidence – for this to hold water. Believe me, I wish it were so simple and that NUCCA was THE cure. I'd be the first in line if that were so.

I'm not sure we're ever going to get anywhere with this Hank because from all that I'm reading, you are very much convinced that anecdote and the observations of people appearing to be well after NUCCA is very compelling evidence for you. Seeing is believing and correlation = causation. This is your "code".

Something Taximom mentioned a long while back in a thread was something about scurvy and limes and she was knocking science through this example. It's ironic that she used this example because she got this one very wrong as the discovery of limes curing scurvy was the first ever documented clinical trial. The discovery that limes cured scurvy was uncovered by a young and smart Scottish naval surgeon named James Lind. He didn't know it but he used the scientific method to solve a problem that was killing hundreds of thousands of sailors in the mid 1700s for two centuries – scurvy – and no one could solve it until this guy came along and applied a blinded trial while out at sea. He used 4 test subjects under controlled conditions.

That's all from me for now ... Monday is over down under.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Here's an interesting read for you Taximom:

MMR doctor struck off register

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8695267.stm

This Andrew Wakefield guy has gone down as a real disgrace and his work retracted from the Lancet medical journal.

"Dr Wakefield should have disclosed the fact that he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR."

S

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Thanks, Jordan. And I know that it is easy to slip into a conversation about chiropractic here. But that is not my intent. I use chiropractic in my examples because I am so close to that. But you use antivirals in your examples, the efficacy of which have not been certified for Meniere's by medical science. So you are making my point here. Your husband's life and your life have been transformed by a results-based treatment. It worked for you. You got the idea right here on Menieres.org, not from your doctor. So thanks for helping to make the larger point here.

Regarding the pictures I give you. That's fine if you do not want to give them credence. And what about the shot of njspingirl here



Now she tells you that she was exactly like the pictures I gave of the two athletes in question. This is so common a condition, brought on by exactly what I say, that there is no need for me to substantiate it. You are right, that is precisely what Nassman would say. And I really don't care. What I am giving you is evidence to a certain possibility to explain these athletes' conditions. And while knowing what I know I highly expect that I know what is going on with these guys, all I present to you is that anyone who has this condition ought to get checked for it.

Dr. Hain...I have watched his video before. And I believe that Dr. Hain has good intentions, like everyone else. And I am gratified that he even speaks to upper cervical causes for vertigo. Solely based on Dr. Hain's authority, that in and of itself ought to put to rest any argument that what I have been writing about for the last three years here is in not true. But in the same breath, Dr. Hain decries the use of upper cervical chiropractic to remedy this condition and proposes no other remedy. Why does he decry the chiropractic remedy? Answer: ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE of stroke! Where are the medical science studies necessary to substantiate any meaningful increase in the chances of stroke as a result of NUCCA or any other qualified technique, the goal of which is to restore the alignment of the upper cervical vertabrae? Neither side of this discussion can have it both ways. If anecdotal evidence cannot be used to support a contention, it certainly cannot be used to argue against that same contention. And the only reason that Dr. Hain uses to urge folks not to undergo proper upper cervical chiropractic treatments, is anecdotal evidence of stroke. Well what about the chances that something might go wrong on the operating table while Peyton Manning, or even your husband, are being cut into inside the skull or right next to the spinal cord? What are the chances of mishap there? Where are the medical science studies on how many invasive operations are botched each year? Where are the double blind studies? With respect to Dr. Hain, the stroke argument is little more than an economic argument, perhaps even an ego-centric argument, promoting the medical/surgical approaches of Dr. Hain, and urging against completely non-invasive and safe chiropractic approaches such as NUCCA and others.

Thanks, Jordan. I believe the points you have made have served to further my thesis here, that results-based treatments that demonstrate even what science calls 'anecdotal evidence' of efficacy treating chronic symptoms, should be considered as viable possibilities worth studying by unbiased research organizations, if they exist; and these treatments should be given the respect that scientists would natually give the individuals who suffer these symptoms, but whose crimes are merely finding success using these treatments. You and your husband are fine examples of the good folks to whom I refer.

Hank

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Hank,

I am not against using anecdotes to choose a personal plan of treatment, not at all. I am just very selective about the anecdotes I choose to accept. I analyze what people say and do more reading/investigation on my own. Regarding antivirals, there are numerous studies on their effectiveness in the treatment of Meniere's, and there are doctors who believe in them and prescribe them for this condition. From reading Dr. Hain's website, it seems that he is not a great believer in antivirals, but I know for a fact that other doctors (who are just as knowledgeable/prominent) see it differently. Just because someone has a bigger and better website doesn't mean he has all the answers or that I will take his word as the final word on Meniere's, chiropractic, or anything else. We all need to use our brains and not put blind faith into any particular person or treatment.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Well, I should be asleep but had to add to your thoughts Jordan. The link with Meneire's or at least some forms of the syndrome with herpes seems very plausible to me. Apparently herpes is the most common viral infection in humans and in cadavers they have found herpes DNA in the vestibualr nerve of sufferers of balance disorders (documented in the literature). Interestingly it is herpes attacks that cause me to have the worst dizziness symptoms ... but that could be a migraine response to a viral infection. Don't know ... colds never seem to wreck me like a herpes attack does.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Excellent point. If we'd just keep that at the forefront - along with an open mind to treatment options - perhaps we'd find out what helps each of us a lot quicker & find relief a lot sooner.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Scott,

Have you ever tried taking antivirals for your condition? There is a specific high-dose regimen that certain doctors (like Dr. Gacek in Massachusetts) recommend.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

If new and compelling evidence comes to light a person should be open and willing to change their position.

Common ground! Absolutely. So the standard is "new and compelling." Well what consititutes that? Well, it could be different for different folks. At least however, that is a lowering of the standard that requires double blind studies by folks who are not economically motivated to perform them, and therefore would never do so.

Regarding the possibility that neck pathology could cause Meniere's syndrome, Dr. Hain confirms that it can cause vertigo, a symptom attributable to certain abnormalities of the 8th cranial nerve. That being the case, there must be a connection between the pathology of the neck and that nerve. The neck can't reach the inner ear. So all that remains is the nerve or nerve pathway, which by virtue of some condition existing in the neck, triggers a malfunction in that nerve or nerve pathway.

Now this thread is getting a little off track. It is not about chiropractic. It is about Science based vs. results based treatments. So I have two questions for you...

(1) Scott, have you ever used a drug off label? Maybe you have not. I don't know. But in certain cases where a medical doctor decides to prescribe a drug off-label, under the reasoned suspicion that it might work to relieve someone's symptoms, is that inappropriate?

(2) Let's just say that during a weaker moment, and we all have them, you drove by a NUCCA office and said to yourself, "You know, I'm going to go in there, perform a little experiment myself, get an exam, treatment if the guy says it's appropriate, and just see what happens to my symptoms. And let's just say that during the treatment, or shortly thereafter, enough to reasonable suspect cause and effect, your symptoms abated 80%. What would that mean to this discussion? What would your position be on the use of results-based treatments? Because that is exactly what has happened with folks who use them. You know yourself pretty well. So what would your remarks be then?

Scott--

"Indeed, when there is neck pathology of other sorts there is a whole science in physiotherapy that can deal with aspects of it as well. Even if all that you say about the neck being "misaligned" could bring this about then why wouldn't a physiotherapist or orthopedic specialist work with these same principles? It's not logical Hank. And what about all the millions of people in the world who are not perfectly aligned but have no symptoms of anything? I would bet if I took a random sample of 100 people off the streets of Sydney and subjected them all to a neck x-ray you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with perfect alignment. And you'd find people with "out of shape" cervical spines who had no complaints at all. Just look at that picture posted by Jim ... you'd think that woman would have more problems than you could shake a stick at. The human body is not perfect. As we age, we all show signs of degeneration in the spine. It's a normal process. There are just too many variables and holes in your hypothesis – and no real evidence – for this to hold water. Believe me, I wish it were so simple and that NUCCA was THE cure. I'd be the first in line if that were so."

I debated with myself whether to even get into this. It is so far on the margin of this thread that it pains me to even go here. But, the answers to your questions regarding why physiotherapists or orthopedic specialists don't work with these same principles is something that goes to training and mindset. Why don't you? I mean, obviously there are successes that cannot be explained by remission (what is that anyway) or dissmissed as placebos. I mean, no matter how hard you try, you cannot placebo away vertigo. That is just not possible. If it could, sugar pills would be as effective as any of these results-based treatments. I'd be having vertigo right now and not know it. Not possible, Scott. You are asking me about the actions of physiotherapists or orthopedic specialists. If these folks were to undergo the training necessary to perform chiropractic adjustments, they would be chiropractors. They chose another professional path. And I'll let you know when you hit me with a real zinger, but tryng to project what other people would do under certain circumstances is no zinger.

"Not logical" you say. One's logic depends on ones assumptions. Change the assumptions, logic turns over on its head. You and I work off different assumptions. I do not assume that medical science is all-knowing, all-seeing. To date, your remarks indicate that you do assume that. I say that because you indicate that if it were true then medical science, in ther persons of physiotherapists or orthopedic specialists would know it. But I have hope for you when I read your remark at the very top, which goes, "I'm glad you said "let's say I am correct" because it does sound at least like you may be open to the fact that it may not have been a chiropractic condition.. I take that as a major point on my side Scott, a major concession from you. That is because you introduced doubt in to your own thesis here. If it may not have been the chiropractic condition, in your words, not mine, then also, it may have been. And if it may have been, THEN BY GOLLY MEDICAL SCIENCE OUGHT TO GET OFF ITS DUFF AND LOOK AT IT! Sorry I didn't mean to scream. I'd hate to set off a migraine and I do apologize.

Now I gotta get to work myself.

Later,

Hank

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Then you agree with me in this discussion, and I agree with you. Glad to have you aboard. Sooner or later the train leaves the station.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Hey Scott, you ought to try some of Jordan's stuff then. It might work for you.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Joy,

>>> ...We all need to use our brains and not put blind faith into any particular person or treatment...
Excellent point. If we'd just keep that at the forefront - along with an open mind to treatment options - perhaps we'd find out what helps each of us a lot quicker & find relief a lot sooner.

I just can't let that one go by without a comment. You have succeeded in totally blowing me away with this post. You just said you are all for using our brains and to not have blind faith in a treatment yet you believe that seasoned powdered rice balls are a treatment for MAV! Do you not see the madness in that -- how retarded that thinking is? I mean at least NUCCA has all sorts of interesting explanations about the neck and nerves etc and at first glance appears like a possible treatment but RICE POWDER? Come on Joy. You've got to be kidding.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

~

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Personal experience is good enough for me.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

I have so, so, so many different points to address in this thread that I don't know where to even begin. Unfortunately, "real life" gets in the way of my ability to engage in discussion. At the risk of running with two discussions at once, I need to address sime comments about Taximom's follow-up post regarding vaccinations. I will then turn my attention to Hank's posts because there is information in there that is flat wrong.

And for the record, Hank, I have no issues with someone trying a treatment based on anecdotal evidence, and I have a very open mind. The problem is that you go beyond merely saying, "Try it. It worked for me!" You have actually postulated -- rather extensively and repeatedly -- your theory as to the mechanism by which NUCCA worked for you, and much of it makes no anatomical sense. And I will address those points very specifically a little later today (again, real life gets in the way). But with that being said, I want to go back to the posts about vaccinations:

For the purposes of accuracy, I want to be clear that I misspoke when I typed my initial post. You are correct that it was not MMR that was banned, but rather the thimerosal vaccines. In my haste, I lumped the whole kit and caboodle together about the alleged manner in which vaccines with thimerosal allegedly "set up" the knock-out blow delivered by the MMR. But, frankly, harping on that point to criticize my opinion on the matter is simply setting up a straw man and failing to see the forest from the trees.

The fact remains that California banned the use of the allegedly offending vaccines because of the purported ties to autism. Since the ban, autism rates in California have increased. This is better than mere anecdotal evidence, by the way. This is pretty damning evidence that there is no link between the offending vaccines and increasing rates of autism.

There is ample evidence that mercury levels in the blood are far more affected by consumption of deep sea fish (tuna, swordfish, etc) than by the amoutns in vaccines. Blood serum levels have been compared for kids who consume seafood and those who don't. Those who consumed seafood regularly as part of their diet showed no higher rate of autism than the general population. Even after diagnosis, the levels of heavy metals in the blood for autistic children were measured and there was no difference than the levels found in "normal" children. This is one of the reasons chelation therapy has been discounted as a viable treatment for autism.

So let's talk about the problem with anecdotal evidence here. The anecdote you wish to believe is that since Amish kids go unvaccinated and have a nearly zero rate of autism, then it would strengthen the theory of a link between vaccinations and autism. I look at the same data and say that it is impossible to use this as anecdotal evidence. Why? Very simply because the Amish population is a very limited and sheltered gene pool. Therefore, if autism is a genetic problem -- probably the prevailing theory -- the scarcity of autism among the Amish is actually anecdotal evidence that SUPPORTS the genetic theory.

You know what else is practically unheard of in Somalia? Any semblance of functional infrastructure. There would be no way of ever even guessing at the true autism rates in Somalia because that country has no central government, no healthcare system, no way to track and report cases, no NOTHING. As you should well know, not all autism is created the same. There is a vast difference between those kids who are simply in the autism spectrum (ASD), kids with pervasive developmental disorder (PDD), kids who are profoundly autistic, Asperger's kids, etc. So a person who could just be viewed as "weird" in Somalia could actually fit the diagnosis of ASD or Asperger's and there is no way for anyone to ever know.

The other problem with the Somali example is that you again point out an extremely small community with an inter-connected gene pool. Perhaps there is a genetic predisposition to autism and there are environmental factors at play in that area of Minnesota that are triggering the development of autism, completely independent of vaccines? You point out that the Somalis in Minnesota are all vaccinated. Are you saying that the Somalis elsewhere in the United States haven't been vaccinated? And if they have, why are only the Minnesota Somalis having such a high rate of autism? Does this again not speak to "anecdotal evidence" of a genetic developmental problem since it is affecting a very shallow gene pool at such alarming rates?