baby bronchitis and massage

[skbuncks]

Surely, no-one needed Randi's approval to conduct an clinical trial experiment?

ETA: Strictly speaking a clinical trial IS a series of experiments. This particular experiment involved the trial of a particular homeopathic remedy on Humans

[niggle]

Ah, quibbling over the meanings of trivial words. A good indication that you have no real argument to offer.

[Matt]

The agreement to the test conditions had already been signed, actually.

Well there you go then. There was nothing at all stopping them from doing the trial adn if they'd suceeded then the JREF would ahve earned them a million. If they already had the final signature then they needed nothign more from Randi adn any delays were of their own making.

Personally I find that difficult to believe and it doesn't hang with the rest of their story.

I don't supose anyone can offer any evidence of this?

No, I'm saying that he was asked to provide an alternative arrangement to accommodate that surgery and he refused.

Did he refuse of siomply not answer. If find that e-mailing the mailbox of someone who's off sick rarely results in a response.

I don't supose anyone can offer any evidence as to a refusal?

[tolman]

I think you're "confused": we're talking about an experiment agreed with James Randi's organisation, not a clinical trial.

So, the medical experiment would seem to have to fit the basic criteria of being randomised, placebo-controlled and double-blind in order to stand a chance of being even provisionally considered by JREF, and would, one assumes, also have to have received ethical approval from the hospital concerned.

Are you saying that's nothing like a clinical trial?

Or are you just trying to split hairs (because it doesn't go through the typical phases I..III, it can't be though of as any kind of clinical trial) to once more avoid the salient point, which is that a doctor who suspects a treatment might work has no need to wait for a Randi in order to put their ideas to the test, and never has had such a need, and never will have such a need.

Regular medics don't wait for a Randi.
Why should a homeopathic doctor?

[niggle]

There was nothing at all stopping them from doing the trial

Of course there was: Randi wouldn't agree to it because he hadn't raised the finance and wouldn't make an alternative arrangement.

Personally I find that difficult to believe and it doesn't hang with the rest of their story.

Of course you do: it doesn't fit the view you've decided to adhere to no matter what.

I don't supose anyone can offer any evidence of this?

You could find it in ten seconds; I did.

Did he refuse of siomply not answer.

The word they used was that he "denied" them the request.

[niggle]

Regular medics don't wait for a Randi.
Why should a homeopathic doctor?

Because the stipulations of the test are that Randi and the applicant must agree to all the test conditions.

[Matt]

Of course there was: Randi wouldn't agree to it because he hadn't raised the finance and wouldn't make an alternative arrangement.

What are you talking about. Had Randi given them the final sign off or not You can't have it both ways.

If as you said earlier they'd already had the signed agreement from Randi then they needed nothing more from him and could go ahead with the trial.

As for not raising the finance - do you mean the prize fund that was donated a decade or so ago and has been sitting as immediately negotiable bonds with Goldman Sachs for anyone to see and verify.

He didn't need to raise anything. Anyone who denies that should look here, here and here

Of course you do: it doesn't fit the view you've decided to adhere to no matter what.

I'm open to evidence. You haven't presented any. The evidence I've seen leads to this conclusion. I'm not going to change my mind without evidence.

You could find it in ten seconds; I did.

I've spent more than tens seconds on the matter and read the accounts on both sides. Nowhere does it say that Randi had at that stage signed off on the final protocol. If you know different then prove it. Otherwise you're making any empty claim.

The word they used was that he "denied" them the request.

He may have actively denied thier request personally, it may be that his staff or collaborators denied their request on Randi's behalf concerned about the state of his health. The notice of the suspension of all activities may have been directed personally to George Vithoulkas or it may have been a mailshot to all applicants on file. It may simply have been that he stopped replying to e-mails or that e-mails directed at Randi's mailbox generated an automated response. It may be that Vithoulkas and co. over interpretted that as a denial.

If you have any evidence beyond what I've already found why are you keeping so quiet about it?

Anyway does classical homeopathy teaches you to harrass an 80 year old man to get back to work after a heart bypass?

Does all his medical training mean that he should delay a clincal trial that was all set up and ready to go for years and as far as he knew indefinately?

Clinical trials save lives. Millions of people every year are routinely denied homeopathic treatment simply because there's no evidence of its efficacy. If Mr Vithoulkas sincerely believed that his trial would supply that much needed evidence then delaying the trial just so that he could put into place arrangements for his own personal profit is profoundly imoral.

[Matt]

Because the stipulations of the test are that Randi and the applicant must agree to all the test conditions.

Don't you understand the question?

If he'd have gone ahead with the trial without Randi and had sucess he could have saved the lives of goodness knows how many people and improved the quality of life for many times more.

Isn't the trial worth doing with or without the promise of the Million?

[tolman]

Regular medics don't wait for a Randi.
Why should a homeopathic doctor?

Because the stipulations of the test are that Randi and the applicant must agree to all the test conditions.

You're avoiding the issue yet again.

If someone simply wants to test homeopathy for the good of future patients, they have no need to involve JREF/Randi at all.

They never had that need, and they never will have that need.

That's a simple and perfectly evident fact.

They only need to get in touch with JREF/Randi if they hope to win a million or get extra publicity.

In this case, a properly conducted medical experiment which gave positive results for homeopathy would seem likely to generate more than enough publicity with or without the MDC.

[tolman]

Of course there was [something stopping them doing the trial]: Randi wouldn't agree to it because he hadn't raised the finance and wouldn't make an alternative arrangement.

Yet the trial is going ahead anyway.
It's also far from clear who was going to pay for what.
As far as I'm aware (and according to the MDC FAQ), the JREF doesn't generally pay for a claimant's expenses, and possibly never pays any expenses (it's hard to be absolutely sure, given the wording).

Was the funding issue over paying for people to attend on behalf of JREF, or something else?

Do you know if JREF or Randi were offering to fund the entire trial, or some significant part of it?
If so, please give your sources for that belief.

If it was only a case of the JREF funding their own observers, then clearly the trial could have carried on without JREF involvement, had that been desired.

[Mojo]

It's also far from clear who was going to pay for what.
As far as I'm aware (and according to the MDC FAQ), the JREF doesn't generally pay for a claimant's expenses, and possibly never pays any expenses (it's hard to be absolutely sure, given the wording).

Was the funding issue over paying for people to attend on behalf of JREF, or something else?

Do you know if JREF or Randi were offering to fund the entire trial, or some significant part of it?
If so, please give your sources for that belief.

If it was only a case of the JREF funding their own observers, then clearly the trial could have carried on without JREF involvement, had that been desired.

Rule 7 is fairly explicit as far as the applicant's expenses are concerned:

7. All of the applicant's expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

[babyphysio]

Hello,

I'm new to this site. I live in France and have an 8 month old baby who presently has bronchitis. Our general practitioner has recommended going to see a "kinesitherapeute" who apparently massages the lungs to clear them out. I'm a bit wary because I know how bona fide medicine in France is mixed up with pseudoscience like homeopathy. I can't find anything on the web about this practice. Does it have any scientific credentials?

Any info appreciated!

here all the responses of your answer .
I m French Physiotherapist specialised in chest physiotherapy and working in London .
Kinésithérapeute mean physiotherapist in French ( different word same profession )
What your Gp recommended you is a chest physiotherapy , extremely common in France , and just new in Uk .
It s a very efficient technique based on the acceleration of the expiratory flux of the baby. The acceleration of the air in the lungs push the mucus up and then we us cough reflex to take the mucus out . like this the baby can breath better after about ten minute of massage .
The massage is not painfull, not invasive, and the baby wont have any side effect as it s just a massage.
And It s not a pseudoscience, It s been used in French , American , Suisse .... hospital for ages now. It s not known in UK for a reason that i dont even understand. Because this technique has no bad effect , release the breathing pain of the baby, and reduce lengh of the disease by nearly half and avoid baby to end up in hospital for respiratory distress or lung infection .
This technique is mainly use for bronchiolitis and brochitis but for any other disease bringing mucus in the lungs.

[babyphysio]

Hello,

I'm new to this site. I live in France and have an 8 month old baby who presently has bronchitis. Our general practitioner has recommended going to see a "kinesitherapeute" who apparently massages the lungs to clear them out. I'm a bit wary because I know how bona fide medicine in France is mixed up with pseudoscience like homeopathy. I can't find anything on the web about this practice. Does it have any scientific credentials?

Any info appreciated!

Apparently that work simply tranlates as physiotherapst.
Having said that Google translate doesn't agree.

I was concerned that we might be delving into the realms of Applied Kinesiology though kinesiologist seems to translate to kinésiologue.

AP is definitiely bullshit. Physiotherapy may not be though depends what claims are being made about it. I'm not able to say whether or not it's an effective treatment for Bronchitis.

Massage isn't mentioned on the NHS treatment page for Bronchitis

if it is a kinesiologist, i have seen one a few times and she has done wonders for me and my daughter, i dont know how well it would work with bronchitis, but i guess it doesnt hurt to try.

you can check out this article too
familiesonline.co.uk/article/articleview/4271/1/11
see you guys

[Matt]

here all the responses of your answer .
I m French Physiotherapist specialised in chest physiotherapy and working in London .
Kinésithérapeute mean physiotherapist in French ( different word same profession )
What your Gp recommended you is a chest physiotherapy , extremely common in France , and just new in Uk .
It s a very efficient technique based on the acceleration of the expiratory flux of the baby. The acceleration of the air in the lungs push the mucus up and then we us cough reflex to take the mucus out . like this the baby can breath better after about ten minute of massage .
The massage is not painfull, not invasive, and the baby wont have any side effect as it s just a massage.
And It s not a pseudoscience, It s been used in French , American , Suisse .... hospital for ages now. It s not known in UK for a reason that i dont even understand. Because this technique has no bad effect , release the breathing pain of the baby, and reduce lengh of the disease by nearly half and avoid baby to end up in hospital for respiratory distress or lung infection .
This technique is mainly use for bronchiolitis and brochitis but for any other disease bringing mucus in the lungs.

Thanks for stopping by and clearing that up. At least now we know that AK was a red herring. Giving us the search term "chest physiotherapy" is also helpful in finding the evidence base for this intervention.

So far my research has not found a strong evidence base for this intervention. Most positive outcomes seem to be associated primarily with postural drainage rather than percussion or vibration.

In addition there is a slight (1 in 1000) risk of rib fracture here and here though one might easily defend the practice by saying that the risk is of getting an incompetant practitioner than with the procedure being correctly applied.

I'd be interested to see a reference for halving hospital stays for acute bronchitis. Certianly the cochrane review didn't find that for the related condition of acute bronchiolitis. However for more severe cases certain proxies were improved in this study

I'm not saying it's pseudoscience. I'm open minded, I'm not leaping to any conclusions based upon a thin evidence base. Even if it doesn't improve recovery times it may still reduce symptoms which can only be a good thing.