This.
Being as generous as I can in the circumstances, moderate quality evidence for a non-zero effect might (might) sometimes indicate potentially productive areas of further research. But nothing more. It certainly is not even close to justifying application in the clinic, on real human...
This. The whole of the current clinical model is based upon the assumption that the clinician has some superior insight to offer the patient, when they quite clearly don't, and won't admit it.
Paternalistic, infantilising, intimidatory, blame-shifting drivel.
I counter with:
You, the clinician/researcher, will be expected to proactively meet robust minimum technical and ethical standards.
While this is potentially interesting, being able to override something temporarily does not constitute a justification of the putative underlying hypothesis (mFND), nor a therapy, let alone a "recovery".
There is a nasty rumour getting about the world that the reason why Australia doesn't have any Tasmanian Tigers left is because we humans drove them to extinction.
Malicious slander. They were wiped out by the native Drop Bears, who regard anything with stripes as food.
Which is why you never...
I don't really buy that they don't get it. Much more inclined to the view that it is just an act, that they know they cannot meet the minimum standards the rest of medical science has to, and cannot admit to what they have done and take the consequences.
They don't get the ignorant or stupid...
Well, yes.
But I really want is competence, and honesty about where that ends.
You want to show me Dignity, Respect and Empathy? Learn to say I Don't Know when required, and mean it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.