You guys are great thanks for opening up my eyes

Have you read the testimonials from his site? My son's story is common.

Just think for a minute 'What if all those testimonials are true?' instead of you're current viewpoint.
I'm going to phone the doc, I should be getting commision for this.

 

LOL... My current viewpoint is that such testimonials are not evidence for the validity of a treatment they are evidence for people believing it worked for them... that's perfectly possible but it doesn't make the treatment anymore valid. I do for example believe your son was helped I just don't accept that proves the treatment is valid. People can get helped by crystal healers too... it doesn't mean crystals actually have healing powers- they don't. Following your position any website for any treatment you read no matter how silly that has a large range of testimonials must be worth looking into. Again I think your claim to be a skeptic is not holding up very well .

 

I'm not asking you to believe, just ask yourself 'What if ?' for a minute.

I agree the testimonials on any advertising should be taken with a pinch of salt but I've seen these letters, some are note, some on NHS headed paper. I don't doubt any of them.

 

I think your missing the point a bit though I'm NOT doubting the existence of testimonials I'm just saying such testimonials are not valid proof for the effectiveness of a treatment. If a conman had a million testimonials thousands of which are on headed note paper that wouldn't make what he was selling any less of a con. My 'what if' sense is turned on not by testimonials but by proper evidence... my 'bullcrap' radar is usually turned on when scientific evidence is lacking and testimonials are offered instead.

 

Those testimonials together with the four members of my family recieving treatment, together with the 5 other people that I know that have had successful treatment from him prove his abilities to me. I don't know what or what hasn't been proved to the satisfaction of whoever. I don't need to, he fixes folk, what better proof is there than that?

 

It seems like we are just going in circles here I'm not disputing testimonials or a persons ability to cause people to feel better. I'm disputing that this in anyway proves that the treatment is doing what it is claimed to do i.e. unfusing fused bones rather than doing something else that is helpful such as relieving tension and being a nice massage! I think there is a bit of a disconnect here.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it other than the examples I posted but to try again:

If you and your family went to see a person who claimed to be a wizard and they gave you a massage with their wand and it made all your aches and pains go away does this prove A) that your family felt better after visiting a wizard possibly due to a nice massage or B) that magic is real and the wizard must have used his magical powers to heal you?

I'm not suggesting you stop visiting the guy that has obviously helped you, I'm also not suggesting in general that people don't go get whatever therapy they feel like... all I am arguing against is the view that testimonials prove that a treatment is therefore scientifically valid and proven.

 

So you haven't read them then

Perhaps you need to experience or see the treatment to understand.

Try it, what better proof could you get?

 

I think your missing the point somewhat, I'm not suggesting that the guy that treated you is a wizard. I'm trying to get you to see the flaws in the logic underlying your argument. However clearly your not interested in actually debating anything logically beyond repeatedly stating that you believe in the treatment because it worked for you and he has testimonials some even on NHS paper! The fact that I'm not disputing that the treatment helped you, your family or your friends and am not disputing that testimonials exist seems to be somewhat shooting over your head.

For you testimonials and personal experience is conclusive proof that a treatment is valid and must work as described. Fair enough... if you want to believe that fine, it's poor logic and as I've tried to explain it means any charlatan with testimonials and any record of healing must also be offering a completely valid treatment but obviously your going to respond by telling me your family and friends benefited and he has testimonials so it's a bit of a pointless discussion.

I did read the testimonials on the website and shockingly they are just like the testimonials contained on almost every alternative therapy website it's just a pity that with such incredible results he couldn't take part in a clinical trial revolutionise modern medicine and lend credibility to the alternative medicine field he is involved in.

Here are some other testimonials that prove that:
That a cure for cancer has been found! Look at all those testimonials from all over the world for all different types of cancers- there must be something to this(!)
http://www.tianxian.com/
Here's a real doctor advocating alternative cancer cures there is even a video testimonial section(!):
http://www.drday.com/

And here's a website discussing the problems with testimonials as evidence:
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2004/12/understanding-alternative-medicine.html

I await eagerly being told that your family were cured, you require no further proof that the treatment works as described and that there are testimonials on the website.

 

So personally seeing massive and permanent improvement in injuries that have been a problem for years and believing the person that did it is flawed?

But if a government type body says it's Ok then it must be true. I think your logic might be a little off here.

edit: I've just thought, he get referrels from NHS doctors, he must have some sort of legitimacy, at least to the GP's that use him.

 

If what he is doing has an actually objective effect then he would be able to do what he does under proper scientific research conditions, which can control the likes of placebos, observer bias, and other such influences.

No one is saying he doesn't help people, but it wrong to then declare that the treatment or profession works. All you can say is that it had some 'effect' on some people.

 

Like I said above, you cannot jump from this to "well this guys profession works".

Of course the difference here is that a government body will only declare a medicine or treatment as valid once it has been scientifically proven.

To be honest I wouldn't trust individual GPs over the scientific consensus and evidence, it doesn't give a scientific legitimacy to the treatment. It only suggest there GPs are injecting their personal beliefs in pseudoscience into their treatment, or that they have the view that an alt. med. "is worth a try."

 

I don't know whether he has or hasn't. As I've just posted the local NHS use him, which is very annoying as it's getting harder to get an appoinment.

So if it works it's wrong to say it works. Why exactly?

So that makes me the best qualified person to post since rubberband. What, if any, experience do you have in this field?

 

So the people on the ground, actually seeing and dealing with their patients count for nothing whereas scientists who conduct clinical trials are the answer to all lifes problems?

 

People can get helped by crystal healers too... it doesn't mean crystals actually have healing powers- they don't.
...
If you and your family went to see a person who claimed to be a wizard and they gave you a massage with their wand and it made all your aches and pains go away does this prove A) that your family felt better after visiting a wizard possibly due to a nice massage or B) that magic is real and the wizard must have used his magical powers to heal you?
...
Following such logic 'means that any charlatan with testimonials and any record of healing must also be offering a completely valid treatment'
...
All of the above are the same poin which still somehow you seem to be missing. Please note no-one is syaing the treatment didn't help your family and others what they are saying is being helped does not mean that the theory behind the treatment is correct.

The fact that a massage and joint manipulation session helped does not prove the underlying theories being espoused are correct.

 

I am curious isn't this how many methods are tested?

If you give drug A to person A and they say they feel better isn't that a testimonial? I mean of course they may be able to measure certain hormone levels etc. to back up the claim. But what if those were not out of balance to begin with and someone is just exp. pain? You give them aspirin and pain gone, is this not a testimonial? Don't most OTCs rely on testimonials? I mean once any kind of treatment is out on the market they rely on testimonials to keep them going.

They hardly keep doing blood tests and everything else to keep making sure drugs/healing methods work. I mean if you test on any living thing that can speak, you would have a testimonial of how the drug made them feel, better or worse etc. You cannot tell everything just from lab tests of how a person feels. If this were true we would not have any ill people running around, or having people having unexplained pain/illnesses.

I maybe reading wrong into your post CK, but testimonials are still vital to any method. Even if the numbers "speak for themselves" you still have a scientist that would say the results were this b/c of this (a different testimonial) the only difference being that he could back them up with all mighty numbers.

 

So am I correct in saying here CK that in a nutshell:

Your issue is not with the method, but with the underlying philosophy? So if in your example the Wizard just admitted that he was doing massage and not adding in any mystical chants etc. You would be okay with the results if it helped the person?

 

Your understanding of how moden medicine functions is not very good... First of someone being a GP does not immediately make them an expert at dealing with pseudoscience and indeed as Homer suggests individual GP's will have incredibly divegent attitudes on alternative medicine. There are some who will for example be qualified GP's and qualified alternative medicine practitioners as is the case of some of the doctors in the clinic your raving about.

Next clinical trials are not in competition with GP's... clinical trials are there to establish the veracity of a treatment. Think of clinical trials as producing a grand database of information on the effectiveness of treatments, it is then up to the individual GP's to assess this information and decide which treatments should be offered (though of course there are certain standards so if for example a drug had problems during clinical trials it's not going to be available). Of course for alternative medicines failure in clinical trials is not a death sentence and in fact the findings of clinical trials are rarely factored into claims of efficacy or decisions on what a treatment is suitable for. As such alternative treatments will always be available privately so it remains up to individual GP's as to whether or not they send people to them. The evidence is not there but then while some GP's may honestly believe that the treatment works as described, others may think that it might just prove relaxing/beneficial to the patient even if they don't believe the theory is valid.

So to summarise it's not a conflict between what the clinical evidence says and what reality says... the conflict is between what treatments have evidence that they work under controlled conditions and which don't, which treatments are based on a proven medical theory and which are based on metaphysics and so on. And again at the end of the day this doesn't make one treatment not available it just means that if you give a crap about scientific evidence and methods of treatment based on a real understanding of the body it's the treatments with clinical trial support that come out ahead.

Derren Brown might be able to cure people of illnesses too if he tried but that doesn't make what he would be doing proper medicine.

Oh and lastly alot of the clinical trials performed are performed by doctors treating seriously ill patients. There is not this ridiculous divide you have set up in your head between 'scientists' in white coats running round with their theories and conducting their trials and 'real doctors' treating patients. The ones administering clinical trials are doctors!

 

I thought they proberly might be, wasn't sure though.

So until someone rubber stamps the treatment you won't use it?

 

I think that's confusing marketing strategies with clinical trial evidence. For instance in a clinical trial how person A reports they feel on Drug B is important but then of great significance and what makes clinical trials work so well is that person A may be receiving a placebo and doesn't know it and so it is nothing to do with the drug. Testimonials are relevant of course but they aren't enough especially when people have a remarkable ability to fool themselves and overexaggerate and especially when every alternative therapy under the sun no mater how ridiculous regularly trots them out as evidence of efficacy. Just look at the websites I listed.

Sort of. To clarify the wizard can keep chanting all he wants as long as he doesn't claim it's in any way a scientifically valid treatment. However, for him to be a nice wizard in my books he should also be honest about the evidence for his treatment and ideally take account of what studies and our modern understanding of the human body have shown the treatment he is offering to be possible of curing. Where the treatment has no evidence for having an effect I think he should point out there's no real evidence for its effectiveness but he's willing to cast some spells and whatnot if your game.

Essentially my issue here is that what a person claims helped and what actually helped need not be the same thing.

 

Unless a treatment has some clinical evidence I will regard it skeptically. I've had acupuncture and whatnot done mainly to see what it's like and it was pleasurable and relaxing. I'm not against non-proven therapies existence I just don't think their claims should be taken seriously until their proven under controlled conditions.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy an energy balancing deep massage as much as the next person. However, I am actually a big believer in things like exercise and so on and would generally prefer not to visit a doctor unless the problem was serious enough to warrant it. And where it was serious enough... I want treatment thats proven. So thats my view.