[pstinard]

Originally Posted by gemy

Thanks Phil for posting this more complete definition of what is meant by evidence based medicine. It is interesting to take note of the fact that clinical personal experience is highly factored into an evidenced based approach. There is nothing in the above definition that precludes naturopathic or homeopathic doctors from practising an evidence based approach. With the glaring exception of the fact that the body of scientific studies for herbal remedies (of one nature or another) has not been built.

My point exactly! Alternative methods CAN be evidence based. They simply need need to build a data set (case studies, etc.) that show that their approach works. That's all evidence based medicine is asking: Does it work? The "why" can be worked out later.

Originally Posted by gemy

In my reading of the article below this person was not providing a definition of Evidence Based Veterinary Medicine in its totality - but as asserted in the first paragragh speaking to a specific question that they get quite commonly - ergo - where are the studies backing up your claims? And I have no doubt that is a question they often get! Certainly one I would ask.

Originally Posted by gemy

I believe it is a common conception (perhaps misconception) that there are scientific studies in traditional medicine to back up every treatment plan a vet or an MD makes. This article is pointing out the fact that this is patently not so. Is this assertion valid? IDK. But common sense tells me it is so.

Yes, exactly! But traditional medical approaches that have failed are NOT evidence based medicine. Evidence based medicine is a recent concept that (believe it or not) was developed in the 1990's, and a lot of older, failed approaches still need to be held up to higher standards and discarded if they don't really work.

Originally Posted by gemy

The author focussed on mechanism of action being unknown for many drugs out there. Is this a true statement of fact? IDK - How important is it to know the mechanism of action before prescribing a drug? Marketing it? Or is it more important to know that it works on some of the ppl some of the time - and if over time it is shown to be ineffective for condition a/b/c then you stop prescribing it.

No, the mechanism of action of MOST drugs is known--the article was pointing out a few examples of drugs for which the mechanism was not known at the time they were developed. The most important question is "does it work?" but obviously it helps if they know the mechanism, because it makes it easier to develop more useful drugs, as well as to know the interactions with other drugs that might result in side effects.

The reason they were making this point is that the mechanism of homeopathic medicine is not understood, either. And that's okay, IF there is a body of evidence that shows that it works. Mechanisms can be worked out later.

Originally Posted by gemy

I have a question for you Phil - I have heard recently that Canada and the USA signed an international agreement years ago - 15 or more years ago - signed an accord that said - the funders of the research *own the research* - and that includes publishing or not the results of the study. As of yet I have not been able to confirm that assertion. If true that is very disturbing to me.

My next research project . I will see if I can find out for you. My understanding is that if a drug is going to be marketed, they HAVE to publish the data that proves that it works, or make it available to the regulatory agencies (not all data is worthy of publication). The manufacturing techniques, though, are trade secrets, and they don't have to reveal those. They do have to prove safety and effectiveness of the final product, though.

Originally Posted by gemy

Homeopathic medicine has a huge body of clinical experience available to the doctors of said medicine. At least that is my understanding.

Originally Posted by gemy

I how-ever agree that this article whilst pointing out some of the short-comings of Western medicine does nothing to advance the validity of homeopathic or naturopathic discipline.

Thanks Ann for posting this article - although finding the links were tough.

Yes, and smearing evidence based medicine is definitely something they DON'T want to do. Otherwise, how can they show that their approach works? You can't have it both ways. (Sorry for the strange way the quotes are handled in this post--I can't fix them.)