More synergistic effects of alternative therapies
Hypothesis #1: Therapies/remedies work beyond placebo only if taken together (all 30 of them), they work in synergy
Hypothesis #2: Therapies/remedies don't work beyond placebo if applied one by one.
Hypothesis #3: You can't patent any of the therapies/remedies, it all exists in nature, or have been used before
Questions: How do you design one placebo controlled, randomized, double blind study, that will evaluate this "integrative approach", and how do you prove it working?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the way I understand the application, hypothesis #1 is not scientifically derived. There is no evidence to have us suspect that 30 benign natural processes can somehow magically come together to produce an epic effect. The example that air, water, nourishment etc all come together to sustain human existence is not correlative because it does not conform to Hypothesis #2, we can observe the individual effects of each. Like ingredients in making a cake. If a rooster crows 3 times in the morning at precisely 6am, walks twice around the henhouse, ruffles his feathers every 49 minutes and retires at exactly 7pm how can it be suggested (outside the occult, e.g. "One two buckle my shoe....") that this exact protocol kept the fox out of the henhouse?
Valid hypotheses about the additive effects of different interventions are tested, compared, and/or analyzed all the time, and seldom does it take a prospective RCT (fancy study.) For example, there was a recent report declaring the 10 best hospitals in the nation. There are obviously several (at least 30) factors that made the difference for those 10. Now it is up to researches to find and compare all of what the top 10 hospitals are doing right, that the sub-par hospitals are not. The test comes when a thorough analysis becomes recommendations that are applied back to the hospitals
Hypothesis #2: Therapies/remedies don't work beyond placebo if applied one by one.
Hypothesis #3: You can't patent any of the therapies/remedies, it all exists in nature, or have been used before
Questions: How do you design one placebo controlled, randomized, double blind study, that will evaluate this "integrative approach", and how do you prove it working?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the way I understand the application, hypothesis #1 is not scientifically derived. There is no evidence to have us suspect that 30 benign natural processes can somehow magically come together to produce an epic effect. The example that air, water, nourishment etc all come together to sustain human existence is not correlative because it does not conform to Hypothesis #2, we can observe the individual effects of each. Like ingredients in making a cake. If a rooster crows 3 times in the morning at precisely 6am, walks twice around the henhouse, ruffles his feathers every 49 minutes and retires at exactly 7pm how can it be suggested (outside the occult, e.g. "One two buckle my shoe....") that this exact protocol kept the fox out of the henhouse?
Valid hypotheses about the additive effects of different interventions are tested, compared, and/or analyzed all the time, and seldom does it take a prospective RCT (fancy study.) For example, there was a recent report declaring the 10 best hospitals in the nation. There are obviously several (at least 30) factors that made the difference for those 10. Now it is up to researches to find and compare all of what the top 10 hospitals are doing right, that the sub-par hospitals are not. The test comes when a thorough analysis becomes recommendations that are applied back to the hospitals
posted by nawledge at
7:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home