Charlie wrote:I don't think 'Peer reviewed ' carries much weight. There are homeopathic peer reviewed journals as well
Well, I agree that 'peer reviewed' doesn't necessarily = 'guaranteed error free', but it's still obviously better for an article to
be peer reviewed than not. And I'm not really sure what point the fact that peer reviewed homeopathic journals exist makes, given that that's not where this article comes from (refer back to p.4 of this thread, where I explained how chiropractors, at least in Canada, based on the amount of education required, are considered full medical doctors).
Charlie wrote:I would still maintain that this is really just an anecdotal story.
Anecdotal stories aren't subjected to the following (or any) criteria. This is the submission policy from the Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association (where the article was published)...
"Articles of a highly speculative nature, which are not adequately supported by the literature, or by usual methods of research may not be accepted for publication.
Papers submitted to the JCCA are reviewed by members of an editorial board and/or other referees. Referees with special qualifications in the subject matter presented are consulted, and decisions are made with due consideration of their evaluations.
All statistical techniques must be identified and, when appropriate, referenced. Levels of statistical significance must be stated. All individuals responsible for statistical evaluation must be identified.
Authors are expected to disclose any commercial associations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All funding sources supporting the work should be acknowledged in a footnote on the title page. All affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials of the research discussed (eg, employment, consultancies, stock ownership or other equity interest, patent-licensing arrangements) should be cited in the cover letter."
Charlie wrote:I think there are only 2 controlled studies for the two main treatments discussed on this board.
My understanding is that a 'controlled' study includes the use of a placebo (or 'control') on some of the study participants, correct? That said, I'm not sure
how one would administer an ART 'placebo', as it's quite a vigorous treatment (surely patients receiving the placebo would know they weren't getting the real deal?). And for that matter, how does one come up w. a placebo for surgery?! (in the case of the 'controlled' Nantes study you mention)