> In Dr. Nagler's website, http://www.tinn.com/homeopathy.html, he
> states very clearly his own law:"No tinnitus sufferer who found even a
> small amount of relief ever cared one iota whether or not the
> treatment which resulted in that relief was based on "science."
> (Nagler's Law).
Susan <Susan@nothankyou.com> wrote in part:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Yet on this newsgroup, he often insisted on such trials while debating
>the merits of anything he didn't believe in.
I think there's a big difference in a tinnitus sufferer not caring
whether something that helped him was scientifically supported or
not and in disregarding science.
We are each a little different. Sometimes the statistical truths
that come from properly done controlled trials are irrelevant to
an individual. Unfortunately, we have no way of choosing
treatments yet based on our individual differences.
I know for sure that Dr. Nagler supports clinical trials of
tinnitus treatments, whether or not they are ones he "believe's"
in. So do I.

Signature
Jim Chinnis / Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Want to discuss Meniere's? See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenieresDG
Susan - 31 Mar 2005 17:50 GMT
> I think there's a big difference in a tinnitus sufferer not caring
> whether something that helped him was scientifically supported or
> not and in disregarding science.
Yes, I agree.
> We are each a little different. Sometimes the statistical truths
> that come from properly done controlled trials are irrelevant to
> an individual. Unfortunately, we have no way of choosing
> treatments yet based on our individual differences.
Well, we each sort of do. Whether anecdote, intuition, alternative
practitioner guided, we sometimes choose to experiment with things that
haven't been studies and get lucky. My way of choosing has to do with
low potential for harm, first of all.
That's how my child was cured of chronic tick borne diseases, BTW, after
3 1/5 years of suffering. It was educated/informed experimentation, but
only that. Led to empiric trial of atovaquone with zithromax, which
worked quickly and completely.
> I know for sure that Dr. Nagler supports clinical trials of
> tinnitus treatments, whether or not they are ones he "believe's"
> in. So do I.
I'm sure Dr. Nagler supports trials of any potential dinnitus treatment.
My reference had more to do with a battle he chose to engage in with
me about the action and uses of Prozac. I had info about it that pretty
much all practitioners and those who'd worked with patients knew, yet he
claimed that I shouldn't have shared it without double blinded placebo
controlled studies backing me.
I realize this had more to do with his disposition and attitude about me
than his attitude toward tinnitus treatments.
Susan
Jim Chinnis - 31 Mar 2005 18:49 GMT
Susan <Susan@nothankyou.com> wrote in part:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>haven't been studies and get lucky. My way of choosing has to do with
>low potential for harm, first of all.
We have no good way. The studies give statistical guidance,
sometimes quite strong. Treatments that have not been studied or
that statistically have modest effects are fair game for
intuition, etc. And sometimes perseverance pays off.

Signature
Jim Chinnis / Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Want to discuss Meniere's? See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenieresDG
Susan - 31 Mar 2005 19:47 GMT
> We have no good way. The studies give statistical guidance,
> sometimes quite strong. Treatments that have not been studied or
> that statistically have modest effects are fair game for
> intuition, etc. And sometimes perseverance pays off.
Very true. K's doctor's and I just kept pushing buttons and
combinations until we got lucky. Like playing the slots, with a little
educated guessng mixed in.
Mostly, the cure came from Dumb Luck, my all time favorite treatment.
Susan
fyfpoon@hotmail.com - 31 Mar 2005 18:36 GMT
You wrote:"We are each a little different. Sometimes the statistical
truths
that come from properly done controlled trials are irrelevant to
an individual. Unfortunately, we have no way of choosing
treatments yet based on our individual differences. "
===============
I very much doubt if there were such a thing as 'statistical _truths_'.
There definitely is what we call _a_ 'statistical result' from 'a'
study or 'some' studies, and this _result_ does not necessarily
represent 'truth'.
Against this background, such a result, from 'a' or 'some' studies, is
irrelevent to an individual patient not only from a statistical point
of view but in particular from the standpoint whether or not a
particular treatment carries with itself 'irreversible consequences'.
That is to say, if the consequences were either irreversible or hardly
reversible, as in the case of taking ATIVAN or COCAINE, this kind of
treatment should be avoided as much as possible. At this moment, I
really want to go back to that doctor that prescribed Ativan to me and
beat the crap of him!
FP
Yes, I noticed that. He was circulating the double-blind study on
gingko to anyone who was willing to listen. I listened too but took
the advice of my Cambridge doctor any way and took ginkgo. Frankly, I
quite enjoy the 'placebo' effect from gingko even until now.
FP