Science Based v. Results Based Treatments for Chronic Idiopathic Symptoms O.K. So science based is a bunch of scientists sitting around trying every which way/method to determmine the cause and then treatment of some hertofore labeled idiopathic symptoms. It follows that results based is coming at the same thing in a backwards direction in that people who have the same labeled idiopathic symptoms find something that helps those symptoms. Now they don't know what caused them but they want the scientific community to look at what they've found with regard to results to help determine what the cause may be. So, it is either cause finds cure or cure finds cause. Basically that is what I"m getting from all the pages and pages of websites and pictures and words that keep flying around. The same words coming from different angles. Now, I'm not a total idiot here and I do tend to break things down into simple components to find a common understanding of what's being said about any particular subject. Espicially one as closely related as this one seems to be, to me. I don't hear Scott saying what his scientific community is doing to solve this idiopathic problem we call Meniere's. What diagnostic tests are they running or profiles they're doing. Something that could help a person try to find an answer for those 'treatments' that have failed them so far. Something to further our knowledge base. I don't see Hank giving us a thesis written up and published in a journal, even a chiropractic journal to show the cause(?) and cure for enough people to warrant a look at. I know a lot of people have been helped with Hank's theroy but most of those people have had an injury to the spine at some point in their life that caused their symptoms. I have no doubt that chiropractic measures helped those diagnosed with Meniere's who claim that it has. Don't know why it's so difficult for Scott to accept this. I don't see where either of you is talking about your involvement with the advancement for a cure to this disease for pages and pages of replies. This Disease. I'm keeping an opened mind. I'm reading through all the text and a number of the sites posted. I'm more informed than when it started and that's a good thing. But I'm certainly no closer to seeing an end. Now, instead of repeating ourselves over and over agin which I have read VERY often here. Can we have a different, more compelling reason to continue this discussion regarding the title of this post as it relates to Meniere's? I'm not one to try to entertain that I have any great knowledge but, frankly, I'm starting to get bored with it all. I've taken just about all I can from this post and if there is nothing more than arguements about the same thing over and over, I don't really see the point of continuing to read it. I'm not learning anything new about my condition and don't know that I will. It's all been said so many times by a lot of different players. That's about where I'm at with this post. Hank has been more on point with regard to keeping this subject to Meniere's - it seems to me. Scott gives excellent general scienctific verbiage when expounding on his belief. And of course there is lots and lots of info comming from others who are replying here. Could we move this dicussion more towards this Disease? Or is it asking to much?