Continued from Part I.
How we apply a treatment can be much more important than the treatment itself, or the dose makes the poison.[1] If the treatment is considered acceptable regardless of how it is applied, then does it really matter if it is applied at all?
I am not referring to a treatment like naloxone, which is effective by many different routes – IV (IntraVenously), IO (IntraOsseously), IM (IntraMuscularly), IN (IntraNasally), nebulized, and transmucosally.
I am referring to a treatment like acupuncture, which is no less effective when acupuncture is applied in a way that any acupuncture expert would tell us is completely contrary to acupuncture practices. If acupuncture is done the right way it is no more effective than when acupuncture is done the wrong way. This means that acupuncture is just an elaborate fraud.[2],[3]
If we are going to evaluate the quality of any treatment, then don’t we need to know what is the ideal, or have some sort of clue about what the ideal technique is?
In the absence of research on immobilization, we are simply jumping to the conclusion that we have a clue about spinal immobilization. We could claim that we are affecting the body’s chi/qi/magic areas.
Wouldn’t we be better off admitting that we are clueless about immobilization?
Without real evidence, we are just practicing alternative medicine witchcraft.
The way we use spinal immobilization is witchcraft.
–
People have been researching spinal clearance protocols. The results show that people are able to eliminate a lot of people from spinal immobilization without missing true spinal fractures. There is one problem with this research.
Spinal clearance research presumes that patients with spinal injuries will be better off when immobilized.
Our basis for this assumption is bias.
Our basis for this assumption is not evidence.
Real science requires that we minimize bias as much as is practical.
We are using a magical treatment for a real, but infrequent, medical condition.
This is unethical.
–
Then there is the nonsense about not calling it spinal clearance, because some overly sensitive people think the term might be misleading.
Everything about spinal immobilization is misleading.
Avoiding the word clearance is as ridiculous as when NJ implemented standing orders, but insisted that their standing orders were not standing orders. These were only orders which could be implemented prior to medical command contact. That is a definition of standing orders.
–
One way to spot a fraud is when we are more concerned with the presentation of the treatment than whether the treatment really works.
With spinal immobilization and with acupuncture it is all about appearances.
–
Footnotes:
–
[1] All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.
Paracelsus (1493 – 1541)
–
[2] Eureka – Conventional Treatment Plus Placebo Beats Conventional Treatment Alone
Rogue Medic
Article
–
[3] Eureka – Conventional Treatment Plus Placebo Beats Conventional Treatment Alone – comment from RavenBlack
Rogue Medic
Article
.
Nationally Registered EMT-Shaman?