published 07/25/09
The “Impress Me” Test
Most controversial therapies are fighting over scraps of scientific evidence
by Paul Ingraham, Vancouver, Canada MOREclose
Credentials and qualifications
I am a writer and retired Registered Massage Therapist (unusually well-trained for a massage therapist, a 3000-hour program). I’m almost done with a Bachelor of Health Sciences degree. I am a peer reviewer for The Natural Standard, and a copyeditor for Science-Based Medicine. My most important qualification is more than a decade of workaholic post-graduate study, clinical experience, and constant conversations with readers from around the world, including many experts who have provided countless suggestions and criticisms.
For more information, see: Who Am I to Say? More information about my qualifications, credentials and professional experiences for my readers and customers.
Credentials and qualifications
I am a writer and retired Registered Massage Therapist (unusually well-trained for a massage therapist, a 3000-hour program). I’m almost done with a Bachelor of Health Sciences degree. I am a peer reviewer for The Natural Standard, and a copyeditor for Science-Based Medicine. My most important qualification is more than a decade of workaholic post-graduate study, clinical experience, and constant conversations with readers from around the world, including many experts who have provided countless suggestions and criticisms.
For more information, see: Who Am I to Say? More information about my qualifications, credentials and professional experiences for my readers and customers.
Readers and patients are forever asking me what my “hunch” is about a therapy: does it work? Is there anything to it? I’m honoured that my opinion is so respected, but I usually won’t take the bait. Like Carl Sagan, “I try not to think with my gut.”
It’s okay not to know! It’s okay for the jury to be out. And it had better be, because there’s still a great deal of mystery in musculoskeletal health science. Most of the scientific evidence that I interpret for readers of SaveYourself.ca clearly fails the “impress me” test. Even when it’s positive, it’s often only sorta positive. Even when there’s evidence that a therapy works, it’s usually weak evidence: some studies concluded that maybe it helps some people, some of the time, while other studies showed no effect. I’m supposed to get excited about this? To justify confidence in a therapy, we want really good evidence, evidence that makes you sit up and take notice, evidence that ends arguments because it’s just that clear.
Anything less is kind of lame. Anything less is underwhelming. Anything less fails to impress!
Thus, “controversy” about many popular therapies is much ado about nothing. Factions get almost hysterical fighting over scraps of evidence! Why would anyone — patient or professional — get excited about a therapy that can’t clearly show its superiority in a fair scientific test? Where’s the excitement in a debate about a therapy that is clearly not working any miracles?
Science, as they say, really delivers the goods: missions to Mars, long lives, the internet. A therapy has to deliver the goods. It’s got to help most people a fair amount and most of the time, or who cares? Until it impresses you, it’s just some idea that hasn’t yet showed much promise.
We must somehow find a way to make peace with limited information, eagerly seeking more, without being dogmatic about premature conclusions.
Science Science And The Game Of 20 Questions, by Val Jones
