In article <[email hidden]>,
Gymmy Bob said:Would require controlled testing and double blind studies.
Eventually, but not necessarily right off the bat.
Quoted message said:This may cost up
to one million dollars to perform.
Preliminary studies wouldn't. (See below.)
Quoted message said:The medical control people have made sure
that "no money" medical procedures are never tested so they can keep putting
them down and disputing them successfully to the ignorant people.
What alties seem to forget is that controlled studies are the last step
in developing evidence for a treatment. Before that, you have to do
preliminary studies to determine if the controlled studies are even
worth pursuing. If the preliminary studies are promising, THEN the
randomized studies become worthwhile. Often, these preliminary studies
are not all that expensive. Certainly, in the case of gallbladder
flushes, it would be relatively inexpensive.
One preliminary study would actually be fairly easy and straightforward.
It wouldn't even be that expensive and could probably be done for maybe
$10,000 or $20,000, depending on the number of patients used. You would
need a group of patients with symptomatic gallstones documented by
ultrasound and whatever other medical tests were appropriate. You could
choose a group that was going to undergo surgery anyway, but have them
delay their surgery a few weeks to undergo the full course of
gallbladder flushes. You could then do ultrasound studies of them before
the flushes, in the middle of the flushes, and after the flushes are
complete. Anything they pass in their stool that looks like it might be
a stone, you would count and send to the lab to determine if it really
is a stone. At the end, you would look at the pathology results of the
gallbladders removed and carefully look at the remaining stones to see
if there were any signs that they had shrunk. (The cost of surgery would
not be in the study budget because surgery is the standard of care for
symptomatic gallbladder disease and would therefore be paid for by
insurance or other means.) Any objective evidence that the number of
gallstones decreased in the group of people treated with flushes would
be considered a promising result. Any evidence that people undergoing
gallbladder flushes were passing lots of gallstones in their stool would
be considered a promising result.
Randomized double-blind studies may be the gold standard as far as
evidence goes, but less complicated and less expensive studies are the
preliminary work necessary to justify them.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
