Evidence-Basing

[Guest guest]

To arrive at reliable conclusions, correct evidence well-interpreted

is necessary.

How does the process start, grow, develop the funding, reach the cure?

I think it may go something like this:

1. Something seems to work, and a story or anecdote begins to

circulate

2. More people try it, more anecdotes circulate. But these are not

accompanied, usually, by tests or verifiable hard numbers

3. Confusion sets in, because the anecdotes are not organized, the

results are not tested

4. Various entrepreneurs may come on the scene with products using

anecdotes and " testimonials " to sell their products claiming cures or

substantial help.

5. The good outcomes are carefully collected, the bad are not,

usually.

6. More confusion is generated since the total trials versus good and

bad outcomes are unknown. You find 600 remissions from xyz disease.

But, over 100,000 people have tried it, and 1800 actually got much

worse. Still 600 remissions are reported, while the rest is ignored.

7. Finally, someone does a formal study and reports ALL the results,

along with a statistical estimate whether the effects are pure

chance, or influenced by the thing being tested, and what level of

confidence in the conclusions.

There may be NO measurement or testing actually done until step 7.

Anecdotes are short accounts. That's what it means " short " . It

leaves out a lot.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdote that contains some pithy fact. But

it's still a brick or two short of a load, it lacks finality due to

the brevity of it.

To improve your reports, try to fill in as much as you can. Even if

it's something silly like " this was without drugs " even if you never

take drugs. It answers questions about what else was done besides

the thing being tested.

Typical problem with an anecdote: " I did godzilla and the infection

cleared up. " (how fast? infections usually do clear up by

themselves, were any medications or antiseptics used?). etc.

The more info in the report, the less " anecdotal " the report. Full

reports are NOT really anecdotes, they are evidence. Formal studies

are BETTER evidence. Short tales or raves about a miracle, due to

being short and incomplete, are ANECDOTES.

Try, please to make your reports as full as you can. We can live

with anecdotes, and would rather have your reports than nothing.

(I've already made a report form, but so far nobody wants to use

it). The idea is SPIN IT OUT VERBOSELY. Try to think of questions

someone would have from a critical point of view, and put the facts

there which would explain that aspect rather than just leave it blank

and let them guess. Confusion is the enemy, not the high ogres of

the establishment!

bG

[Guest guest]

Electrical Current Heals Chronic Wounds

By Meredith Guinness

HealthScout Reporter

THURSDAY, Dec. 28 (HealthScout) -- Chronic wounds treated with very low

electrical currents heal more quickly than they do with standard treatments, a

new study suggests.

Researchers studying the ElectroRegenesis Therapy Device (ERTD) say it

stimulates the body's natural ability to heal wounds related to amputations,

long-term ulcers, diabetic lesions, circulation problems, paralysis and even

advanced age. Several patients -- some of whom had had wounds for five years --

showed significant healing in just one or two sessions.

The promising study, presented recently at the 8th International Congress of

the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine in Las Vegas, may spell painless

relief for the estimated 2 percent of Americans living with wounds that don't

heal.

" We don't completely understand why it works, " says Dr. Alfred J. Koonin,

clinical study monitor for the device. " What we do understand is that the device

seems to act as an ultra-powerful antioxidant that knocks out infection,

stimulates blood flow and encourages cell regeneration. "

And it also appears to help patients regardless of their age, which can be a

factor with conventional treatments such as dressings, gel packs, topical

medication and surgical procedures, says Koonin, director of research for the

American Institute of Regeneration in Los Angeles.

Chronic wounds are those that show no sign of healing in four weeks or have

not significantly healed in eight weeks, says Winbigler, director of the

Wound Care Center at Stamford Hospital in Connecticut. As the population ages

and people live longer lives, chronic wounds become a significant problem and

more wound-care centers are opening across the United States, she says.

" As people age, the body tends to break down, " she says. " And with diabetics,

there is a high glucose level in the tissue that interferes with healing. When

you or I might bump into something, it would heal. For them, it's a bigger

problem. "

The study observed 25 wounds in patients ranging in age from 20 to 75. For 23

minutes a day, they were wrapped in spongy, damp bandages above and below the

wound. The researchers then wrapped electrodes over the bandages and attached

them to the device, which delivered a low electrical current similar to that

present naturally in the body.

After 23 minutes, wraps were applied to their feet and the treatment continued

for three more hours. Most of the patients received treatments five days a week

for about two weeks.

The average rate of healing was about three-quarters of a centimeter each day

of treatment. Many of the wounds that had not responded to conventional therapy

for months healed within a few weeks, researchers found.

Koonin says the therapy kick starts the body's natural energy source, which

is essential to healing.

" In layman's terms, it takes an electrical system that's out of whack and

sort of normalizes it, " he says.

Koonin says some of the machine's effects are a little mystifying. While

conventional therapies often require surgical or chemical removal of any dead

tissue before treatment begins, dead tissue seemed to disappear after treatment

with the device.

" It seemed to be reabsorbed by the body or converted to new tissue. It's

difficult to tell which, " says Koonin. " My own feeling is it was probably

reabsorbed into the body, but we don't know. "

A slight rash around the wound was the only negative side effect noticed in

some patients. But Koonin says the treatments also seemed to have another

positive side effect.

" Many of them got a little brighter, " he says, particularly older patients,

paraplegics and quadraplegics. " Their appetites started to resume. It's the sort

of thing you'd expect from an antioxidant. It sort of cleans up the tissue. They

felt better. " '

Koonin believes the ERTD, which has a patent pending, will have many

applications. Some animal testing on spinal cord injuries is being done and

trials are planned to test its effects on severe facial pain, shingles and poor

circulation. He hopes the device will receive FDA approval in the next few

months.

Winbigler says wound-care centers offe

baby_grand <bobluhrs@...> wrote: To arrive at reliable

conclusions, correct evidence well-interpreted

is necessary.

Carol Ann

_______________________________

The Pessimist complains about the Wind;

The Optimist expects it to change;

The Realist adjusts the Sails. - The world needs more sailors.

---------------------------------

Photos

Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.