Hi Kevin.
I think this should clear up some things.
Kevin Aylward ) wrote: N. Thornton wrote:
And just how do you propose one finds out the cause without doing
experiments?
And just how do you propose one finds out what works without doing
experiments?
That's not so hard.
First, 'find out what works without doing experiments':
Many people have tried to treat their depression in many ways.
Many
have failed, some have succeeded. Thus many experiemnts have been
done
already.
But completely ad-hoc in general, therefore of limited use.
There are case specific ad-hoc ones, and widely applicable formula
ones. They are not all of limited use at all, and I have seen no real
reason to believe they are.
All one need do is collect the data:
1. realise this is an effective way to learn successful methods
2. attract the people
3. assess the claimed results
4. Apply statistics to discover what is actually working.
Then we will know what works.
But you can't apply meaningful statistics to back of the envelope
studies.
I'm not suggesting a back of envelope study. The data already exists,
and only needs collecting and assessing. The individuals have mostly
been assessed sufficiently within the medical system to know they have
found a real result. Applying statistics to such collected data does
indeed reveal a clear pattern. Lets give you an example.
method A 3 positive results out of 112 attempts
method B 30,000 positive results out of 50,000 attempts
method C 71 positive results out of 400 attempts
method D 4 positive results out of 6 attempts
method E 60 positive results out of 900 attempts
Very simple stuff, it shows clearly which method should be researched
in more depth, and which one might warrant more data collection. This
elementary statistics can indeed be applied.
One needs controlled studies, double-blind tests etc...
etc....Anything else is, in reality pretty much useless.
This is a standard misperception of our time. Collecting the info I
propose would indeed show who has recoverd from what and how, and it
will show up any substantial trends. Such data is not 100% reliable,
but 75% reliability is more than enough of a basis on which to do a
more thorough study on a method. I'll explain this more further down.
Its simply not
cricket to recommend, in a professional clinical environment, quack
cures based on dubious anecdotal claims.
Of course, I would not suggest doing so. First any positive results
would be used as a basis for more research, not for clinical
recommendations. Second there is nothing dubious and anecdotal about
the results of doctors exams and reports that clearly show a cure.
These exams have already been carried out in over 50% of cases.
Now, about 'find out the cause without doing experiments':
The prime point here is we primarily need to know what works.
Whether
you also know the cause or not, what works will still work.
I agree that what works can a valid approach in some instances, in
that
the reason behind is not always necessary. However, you have no idea
what *really* works without doing proper studies.
Thats why I propose a preliminary study that will show us what is
worth a detailed study. Not one to find out beyond doubt what works,
but one to find out what looks real promising, and is worthy of more
thorough research. I have found that there are such things about.
Looking at the cause can come later, for now we just want to know
what's working so we can apply it.
Its a bit like this: you can plant your wheat seeds and get a crop,
or
you can sit around and worry about what causes it to grow. Its the
result that matters most.
And the side effects.
If there are side effects I would consider that part of the result.
One of the results of drug based treatments is going to be side
effects.
This is something I think our NHS health service needs to learn.
There
are folk around who have solved many problems successfully,
Says who?. The snake oil salesman?
Lots of doctors and nurses have seen surprising cures.
AFAIK they dont
sell snake oil. I think its obvious we wouldnt be looking for
testimonies from busineses selling junk.
lots of
doctors and nurses have come across the odd one who achieved a
remarkable result with their condition.
Which could have been luck, i.e. nothing to do with any purported
cure,
just fixed itself on its own. Happens all the time.
Of course. But when you get the data and find tens of thousands of
results from a particular method, way above the luck level with all
other approaches, that is statistically significant data, not just
luck. That is what we're looking for.
Yet the NHS is failing to
collate and assess such data, and study known successes to learn more
techniques it can apply.
One offs are not success.
So if you have a condition and you find a way to successfully treat
it, and have used the treatment lets say 10 times in your life, and it
has resulted in rapid favourable outcomes each time, you're saying
that's not a success? It is by definition a success.
There are working treatments about that have been employed by far more
than one person: clearly numbers are needed to reach any useful level
of conclusion reliability.
The evidence has to be very strong.
It has to be strong enough to warrant a further research project. That
is quite achievable.
This can
*only* come about by controlled trials. This is really a no-brainier.
That's what you've been taught, and I understand why. In reality you
dont need controlled trials to get 75% confidence. You can get that by
pooling multiple results of uncontrolled trials. You'll never get
100%, but with some things you can get enough confidence to warrant
doing a more in depth investigation.
Now, tell me, was the treatment oral magnesium suphate discovered by
double blind controlled trials? I think not. Yet it works, and was
discovered to work. Obviously it is not only controlled trials that
can produce useful data, you only have to understand statistics to see
that, rather than believe what you're taught blindly.
There are very good reasons why dbc trials are generally insisted on,
but to discount _all_ others is an (understandable) mistake... I could
get into all that in much more depth, but its a whole thread on its
own.
Instead the NHS refuses to learn what it
doesn't know.
Confirmation of claimed cures involve large amounts of money.
The system already has that data. Its on peoples medical records.
Those people have already been assessed by their docs/specialists and
found to be better. It costs little.
What does need changing is a specific form is required for this, to
make this data clear and mass-harvestable. At the moment sometimes the
relevant info is written on the records, sometimes its not, and almost
never is it reported to anyone who could make use of it.
The system don't have it.
Wrong again.
1. It takes no fortune to run a small data collection point and issue
the forms.
2. It is actually a very cost effective way to do research to find new
treatments, much more so than paying for drugs that cost billions to
develop. The system does have the money to pay for that, it just needs
to allocate a little of that money more wisely.
When the survey results achieve a successful treatment, it will start
to save the system money. It is simply better value than billion pound
drugs.
Its like a river bed, among all the dirt there is gold
and diamonds, and those valuable things are simply not being made
any
use of.
I think you bit out on this one.
I know, but I'll wait until I see you've comprehended the idea before
taking on board such judgements. I hope from this reply you will be a
bit clearer on the concept I propose. Only when you have got what I'm
actually proposing will you be in a position to make a genuinely
informed judgement. So far that has not been possible - think about
that. Soon or now it will be.
The risks of doing something wrong simply does not allow for this approach.
That doesnt stop todays researchers. Research projects get it wrong
all the time, its expected, its OK.
There are too many claimed cures that arnt.
Absolutely. This can deal with those too when the scheme is later
extended to collecting failed treatment results as well, by reporting
the real results on Snake Oil Brand A. But in all of this we need to
do it based on _evidence_, and not presupposition, which is how its
done today sometimes.
Without proper studies, its all meaningless.
I'm suggesting a valid study that will lead to more thorough studies,
that will lead to a few new curative practices.
One only has two say the words "law" "sue" to put most people in the picture.
No, you've just missed it. Cite me a case of a researcher being sued
for honestly producing data that turns out to not pan out long term.
Its an erroneous criticism.
With what I'm proposing it is clear upfront to all that some of the
leads this generates will pan out and some wont. There wont be any
surprises or broken promises when something's found not to work later,
we know that will happen.
I'm thinking you'll be rather clearer by now on just what I'm
proposing.
Stay well, NT