Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 One of the problems with this study, according to a research colleague of mine, is that practitioners were foreced to tak part in the study by the German gov't. In terms of applying a sham modality to their own patients, then, this opens up the possibility that sham was not properly applied by some practitioners because of fear of losing patients or out of a desire to not see suffering postponed. Since the practitioners were not observed, we really do not know how accurate the " sham " arm was and to what extent such sabotage might have been an issue. -Ben Hawes, L.Ac. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 3 Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:43:59 -0800 " Tymothy " <jellyphish Re: AP migraine study Was the P value .09? I thought i was more like .0001, which is much different, in fact though i didn't do the numbers (as i don't have the full text either) it looked to me as though there was significance. I also find it interesting how it is assumed by these researchers (not LA.c's) that only that those points specifically on the channels have therapeutic effect, in TCM alone there are hundreds of extra points but that there is a lack of fundamentals to define parameters for " sham points " . Lastly, i have issues with studies that use different clinics in their assessment, it's hard to imagine physical therapy, or chiropractic studies done in this way (though i'm honestly not certain that that's not the case), it appears sloppy and poorly designed. Tymothy 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.