 |
In Remembrance
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SE Kansas.
Posts: 374
|
|
|
In Remembrance
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SE Kansas.
Posts: 374
|
Hi Auberon,
I am one of those who use abstracts in my research, and I do it for a couple of reasons: Articles are filled with statistical information that is of no ues to me, I passed my statistics classes in the early 1970s and as soon as I walked out of finals I forgot 90% of everything I learned; I can't afford to pay the $20.00 to $60.00 to even more that many articles cost, and articles are so filled with words and phrases I've never seen before and it would take hours to learn them.
Abstracts provide the basic information I need: The goal of the research; the methods or instrument, and the conclusions.
When I first began researching RSD I had no idea what I was doing, and I saved a lot of useless stuff. As I became more discerning, I learned to ignore abstracts that didn't discuss some sort of research (and that's about 90% of the literature on this disease: Just someone's opinion on what happens).
When I moved on to learning about the immune system, oxygen free radicals, polymorphonuclear leukocytes, phagocytes, etc, I found fewer opinions and more research. Over time I could see when several research articles reached the same conclusions and concluded that widespread agreement is a good predictor of reliability.
I have also seen many examples of research designed to lead to the conclusion the researcher wanted to reach, and became a better judge. I have even learned enough about RSD, IRI, nerves and circulation to identify fatal flaws in research design, and even to tell when a "researcher" is just plain lying.
As you probably noted in my post to Mike, I noted that the stuff he presented had nothing to do with the topic: whether there are psychological factors predisposing someone to RSD. I pointed out that if the material didn't discuss RSD AND psychology, it doesn't apply.
I would prefer to find lots of research abstracts about the etiology of RSD, but neither they, or full articles exist. I am faced with the choice of giving up because I can't find what I want, or pressing on to learn what I can.
My conclusion that RSD is an ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) is based upon the fact that I know that nerves and nervous systems don't do what RSD "experts" tell us they do; and that impaired microcirculation can cause the signs and symptoms the "experts" falsely claim that our nerves cause. And the signs the "experts" pretend don't exist.
When I came across IRI I was forced to learn about the immune system and oxygen free radicals, and when I finally understood that disorder I realized that it starts the same way RSD starts; progresses the same way RSD progresses, and; ends with plugged microvascular systems, which is the only explanation for our signs and symptoms.
I know I will have a more dfficult time persuading people that RSD is IRI than I would have if I wore a lab coat and had a rectal thermometer in my pocket, but I do what I can, and all I can do is keep posting what I've learned until people begin to understand that I do know what I'm talking about.
When that happens, they will understand that hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) has a mechanism of action that does affect RSD and can lead to a better life. When that happens, I will have accomplished something worthwhile. I don't think any of this could happen if I had not relied upon abstracts...Vic
__________________
The great end of life is not knowldege but action. T. H. Huxley
When in doubt, ask: What would Jimmy Buffett do?
email: :
.
Last edited by Vicc; 09-10-2007 at 11:23 PM.
|