OV9

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:55 am
I agree. Your data would be having an actual non-black cat or a fully documented, corroborated sighting of said non-black cat.

However, you wouldn’t dismiss the theory because someone says “oh hey, I once saw a non-black cat”, you’d wait for the evidence.

Nefarious wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:19 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:55 am
I agree. Your data would be having an actual non-black cat or a fully documented, corroborated sighting of said non-black cat.

However, you wouldn’t dismiss the theory because someone says “oh hey, I once saw a non-black cat”, you’d wait for the evidence.

No. What your talking about there is reliability of evidence.
If the anecdotal report is from a questionable source, then sure, you can object to your black cat theory being blown out of the water on the basis that the person providing the evidence is a liar.
Having a photo increases your confidence that the person isn't lying and reduces your ability to dismiss their claim.

However, if we work on the assumption that nobody is lying about their experiences, then my point stands - a single counter example is enough to disprove a theory but a weight of evidence is required to support it.

DeskJockey wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:20 am

Explosive Newt wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:35 pm
Words from a medically trained person you should probably take as sound advice

Nonsense. Don't believe it for a second. They're all in the pockets of big business. What you need is s twice daily infusion of a strong tincture of eye of newt mixed 50/30 with adder spit following the homeopathic rules of fortifying a treatment.

You'll be fine in no time.

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:14 pm

Simon wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:06 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:51 pm

Enjoy your Reiki healing

It isn’t “my Googled knowledge”, it’s the collected scientific evidence.

Yet on the other hand, there is a body of scientific evidence that proves the positive effects of a placebo.

Absolutely. And as I’ve already pointed out, chiropractic and osteopathy are no more effective than a placebo when tested, whereas physiotherapy is more effective than a placebo.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? I feel like Father Ted explaining something to Dougal. “Less effective...more effective...less effective...more effective”

Rich B wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:41 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:14 pm

Simon wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:06 pm

Yet on the other hand, there is a body of scientific evidence that proves the positive effects of a placebo.

Absolutely. And as I’ve already pointed out, chiropractic and osteopathy are no more effective than a placebo when tested, whereas physiotherapy is more effective than a placebo.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? I feel like Father Ted explaining something to Dougal. “Less effective...more effective...less effective...more effective”

What was the placebo in the testing?

METHODS: This trial was conducted in a university-based clinic from 2000 through 2001. Of the 199 subjects who responded to recruitment procedures, 91 met the eligibility criteria. They were randomized, with 82 patients completing the 1-month follow-up evaluation, 71 completing the 3-month evaluation, and 66 completing the 6-month evaluation. The subjects were randomized to osteopathic manipulative treatment, sham manipulation, or a no-intervention control group, and they were allowed to continue their usual care for low back pain. The main outcomes included the SF-36 Health Survey, a 10-cm visual analog scale for overall back pain, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, lost work or school days because of back pain, and satisfaction with back care.

RESULTS: As compared with the no-intervention control subjects, the patients who received osteopathic manipulative treatment reported greater improvements in back pain, greater satisfaction with back care throughout the trial, better physical functioning and mental health at 1 month, and fewer cotreatments at 6 months. The subjects who received sham manipulation also reported greater improvements in back pain and physical functioning and greater satisfaction than the no-intervention control subjects. There were no significant benefits with osteopathic manipulative treatment, as compared with sham manipulation.

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:49 pm

Rich B wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:41 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:14 pm

Absolutely. And as I’ve already pointed out, chiropractic and osteopathy are no more effective than a placebo when tested, whereas physiotherapy is more effective than a placebo.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? I feel like Father Ted explaining something to Dougal. “Less effective...more effective...less effective...more effective”

What was the placebo in the testing?

I posted the link on page 3:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12838090/

METHODS: This trial was conducted in a university-based clinic from 2000 through 2001. Of the 199 subjects who responded to recruitment procedures, 91 met the eligibility criteria. They were randomized, with 82 patients completing the 1-month follow-up evaluation, 71 completing the 3-month evaluation, and 66 completing the 6-month evaluation. The subjects were randomized to osteopathic manipulative treatment, sham manipulation, or a no-intervention control group, and they were allowed to continue their usual care for low back pain. The main outcomes included the SF-36 Health Survey, a 10-cm visual analog scale for overall back pain, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, lost work or school days because of back pain, and satisfaction with back care.

RESULTS: As compared with the no-intervention control subjects, the patients who received osteopathic manipulative treatment reported greater improvements in back pain, greater satisfaction with back care throughout the trial, better physical functioning and mental health at 1 month, and fewer cotreatments at 6 months. The subjects who received sham manipulation also reported greater improvements in back pain and physical functioning and greater satisfaction than the no-intervention control subjects. There were no significant benefits with osteopathic manipulative treatment, as compared with sham manipulation.

Rich B wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:58 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:49 pm

Rich B wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:41 pm What was the placebo in the testing?

I posted the link on page 3:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12838090/

METHODS: This trial was conducted in a university-based clinic from 2000 through 2001. Of the 199 subjects who responded to recruitment procedures, 91 met the eligibility criteria. They were randomized, with 82 patients completing the 1-month follow-up evaluation, 71 completing the 3-month evaluation, and 66 completing the 6-month evaluation. The subjects were randomized to osteopathic manipulative treatment, sham manipulation, or a no-intervention control group, and they were allowed to continue their usual care for low back pain. The main outcomes included the SF-36 Health Survey, a 10-cm visual analog scale for overall back pain, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, lost work or school days because of back pain, and satisfaction with back care.

RESULTS: As compared with the no-intervention control subjects, the patients who received osteopathic manipulative treatment reported greater improvements in back pain, greater satisfaction with back care throughout the trial, better physical functioning and mental health at 1 month, and fewer cotreatments at 6 months. The subjects who received sham manipulation also reported greater improvements in back pain and physical functioning and greater satisfaction than the no-intervention control subjects. There were no significant benefits with osteopathic manipulative treatment, as compared with sham manipulation.

So that scientifically proves osteopathetic and sham manipulation are more effective than no intervention, but where’s the placebo testing you keep referring to? (And how would they conduct that test?)

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:04 pm

Rich B wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:58 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:49 pm

I posted the link on page 3:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12838090/

So that scientifically proves osteopathetic and sham manipulation are more effective than no intervention, but where’s the placebo testing you keep referring to? (And how would they conduct that test?)

The sham manipulation is the placebo.

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:14 pm The sham manipulation is basically a back rub whereas you would expect a trained medical professional to be using a specific technique to target the injury.

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = − 0.36; 95% confidence interval, − 0.59 to − 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

JLv3.0 wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:07 pm I wish I cared this much about stuff.

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:19 pm https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021904

Physiotherapy vs Sham Manipulation

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = − 0.36; 95% confidence interval, − 0.59 to − 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

Mito Man wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:12 pm The only loser on this thread is Rev because he’s spent the whole of his weekend so far googling this shit.

Rich B wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:30 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:19 pm https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021904

Physiotherapy vs Sham Manipulation

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = − 0.36; 95% confidence interval, − 0.59 to − 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

So physiotherapy = Spinal Manipulation? This is all getting very confusing.

Can you just post a scientific test of physiotherapy Vs Chiropractic. You say they are both totally different so someone should have done the test.

Mito Man wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:31 pm

Mito Man wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:12 pm The only loser on this thread is Rev because he’s spent the whole of his weekend so far googling this shit.

JLv3.0 wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:54 pm Dave - do us a favour mate - just list out things you're OK with

Explosive Newt wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:32 pm

DeskJockey wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:20 am

Explosive Newt wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:35 pm
Words from a medically trained person you should probably take as sound advice

Nonsense. Don't believe it for a second. They're all in the pockets of big business. What you need is s twice daily infusion of a strong tincture of eye of newt mixed 50/30 with adder spit following the homeopathic rules of fortifying a treatment.

You'll be fine in no time.

Selling nonsense to idiots is massive healthcare business. You can literally charge people £400 for a saline drip https://theelixirclinic.com/