Both have been diagnosed with RA by WM standards.
Mary:
”Pathology tests however show no change in the levels of the markers in her blood.”
She doesn’t claim to have it. She has it, confirmed by usual pathology testing. But doesn’t suffer from the symptoms.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Well according to the studies, that drug should work.
And it did for a while. And then it stopped working.
Which raises a different curiosity for me about the efficacy of studies and reviews. Which is not a discussion I intended to have here, but it has emerged organically so I’m going to go with it...
Preface this by saying that in my professional days used to be knew-deep in reading studies and systematic reviews and may as well lived in the Cochrane Library 🥴.
In studies for drug efficacy, there are always a number who don’t respond to a drug. That doesn’t make the drug useless, nor can it be said that a drug is the answer or magic bullet.
Similarly, a study could show a drug to be efficacious on only a small cohort... in which case it’s deemed as not effective (and most likely not profitable... and that’s a whole different conversation there).
But what about that 2% (or whatever) that did find it effective?
I guess in the CM paradigm, the language is clear and specific: this Medicine is effective for these people, that Medicine is effective for those people. It is presupposed that there is no single solution for a diverse range of clinical manifestations.
While we can remove ‘confounders’ in the laboratory, we can never really remove them from real life. So why don’t we develop a science around the Uncertainty Principle (in health/medicine at least; I think other branches of Science are onto it from what I can tell).
But I guess this is where the ‘profitability’ discussion enters stage right....
Posted using Partiko iOS