Blind following or rigourous scrutiny?

If DR Clark's 'protocols' have value and merit, then two things should follow -
Firstly, the professionals who practise alternative medicine need to conduct and publish preliminary trials or pilot studies in a form which is acceptable to the scientific community.The usual excuses about "individual differences between patients"," lack of funding", and claims that the treatment that is in fashion at the moment "does not lend itself to scientific assessments" are all nonsense. Treatment is treatment,and it is all measurable ( if it truly is an active treatment and not self delusion!)
Any college or university will assist with the format and the assessment of the data. I frequently collaborate with several departments and faculties and we share our Science and our data. Many MDs regularly do this.
Next, the results should be published.
Unfortunately,most anecdotal evidence is nothing more than just a story that passes from person to person. Many anecdotes are interesting and even exciting, however unless trials are conducted to validate these claims, valuable treatments will remain in the realm of mythology and folklore.
Forums such as this could serve a more useful purpose if they encouraged studies and trials.Mostly,the posts here are from folks who seek fundamental information.Unfortunately the replies are conflicting, confusing and lack references.The newsletter is the exception to this. It includes quotes and references.
There is so much in Clark's work that invites scrutiny and challenge. I have no doubt that she has much to offer, however unless her claims are subjected to the usual rigour that Science demans she will remains little more that a folk hero.
Each one of us, professional or not can contribute to the body of knowledge by experiment and recording our work. It is up to all of us to do so. Tweet