Guest guest Posted July 14, 2001 Report Share Posted July 14, 2001 More to the point, the medical establishment wants to use evidence that is constitutionally barred in legal proceedings - hearsay. They reject the first hand evidence of the person who actually experienced the problems or benefits as anecdotal. They only want to permit hearsay evidence to be used - " 's mother told me that did this and that while chelating. " Hearsay is not admissible in court for good reason, and should always be dismissed out of hand in scientific circles when in conflict with the direct statements of people who were really there. Andy > Peer reviewing (in it's basic meaning)...that's what occurs on this list when folks say we saw such and such on round 2 and someone else writes, " that's exactly what we saw. " Anecdotal really means observed although the medical establishment has given it the meaning of " observed by amateurs and tainted by wishful thinking " . Remember that professional means " paid " and " amateur " means lover (i.e. parents who love their children in this case). " Double blind " mean half don't get the treatment. Do we really want to convince the medical establishment or share the info w/ other parents. Of course doing the former would make it easier in the long run. If we show enough people the " anecdotal " evidence, i.e. kids who behave in a more NT manner than they did in the past, they will ask, " What did you do? " We'll eventually create enough of a demand that docs will finally decide that they need to educate themselves on the subject Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.