scorpion wrote:Why don't we just do away with trials and rely on anecdotal information for all treatments? Who needs scientific studies anyway!
The insistence that CCSVI should be investigated in exactly the same way as a drug trial is unjustifiable. Because the effect we are trying to measure is so much more obvious than what happens with drugs.
It would be using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. In experimental terms this is called using oversensitive instruments.
scorpion wrote:The term "liberation" is in itself misleading in that the definiton of liberation is to set free from a situation or condition. Has anyone seriousley felt that they have been "liberated" from MS since they reived the procedure?
You can assess the effects of liberation simply by comparing the symptoms which were present before liberation and those after. Provided you do this enough times and wait to see that the effect is lasting you have proved the efficacy of the treatment. All you need to do is record it all systematically and in a way which makes the data comparable across subjects. If you wanted to apply controls to this you would need to show what you were trying to control for and why. It is not a given that any experiment needs to be blinded and have a control group. It depends what you are trying to prove.
Really? Have you ever tried to tune a carburettor with an over-sensitive flow meter? It is impossible. With a correctly damped meter it is easy. The problem with oversensitive instruments is that they introduce more noise and make it more difficult to see the effect you want to see. The simple point I am trying to make is that we do not need to be over clever in testing the efficacy of 'liberation' for very many people the difference is chalk and cheese. All we need is a relatively simple survey.
Users browsing this forum: vilnietis