Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Tom Kindlon, Sep 18, 2015.
Free full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4346151/
I read the full text. Not that existing as papers go: they simply counted whether adverse events where mentioned in different sections of a paper and also in the whole paper.
I looked at the issue in relation to some therapies for ME/CFS in my open access paper:
Bulletin of the IACFS/ME. 2011;19(2): 59-111.
Some extracts for what they're worth:
Very interesting, @Tom - weird how this hasn't been studied much. I think it's fascinating. While I'd like to think that no one could be so illogical as to assume that good therapy has potent curative effects, but poor therapy is harmless, this seems to be the case. Sometimes I find natural practitioners are the same: they believe their remedies are potent, but 'natural' and 'gentle' and therefore incapable of causing harm.
Neither of these suppositions is logical of course... but asking logic of people seems to be too much to ask.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.