Thank you for the clarification. Your story however, points out exactly what I am stating. If this treatment is working, then why not do some clinical studies, join the ICMS accreditation program, and publish results? What is the hold up? Even if a doctor does not want to join ICMS, it would make a big difference if a study were done under an IRB and results published. The same holds true for a treatment that is not working. If no patient follow up is given, then perhaps the doctor simply thinks the treatment worked. Either way, it is not cutting it in the scientific community nor with the FDA to operate like this.
It seems that many are afraid of any kind of scrutiny or additional work that would be required to do legitimate studies. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the money is good without doing that, but that is getting those of us that are needing treatment exactly nowhere. If they truly had confidence that their treatments are working, then go the more difficult route, prove it and the world will be knocking at the door.
It seems that many are afraid of any kind of scrutiny or additional work that would be required to do legitimate studies. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the money is good without doing that, but that is getting those of us that are needing treatment exactly nowhere. If they truly had confidence that their treatments are working, then go the more difficult route, prove it and the world will be knocking at the door.