Dentaltown October 2016 - 42

general practice
message board

not really been vetted out well, despite many using the concepts.
The chapter you cite describes the overall concept but lacks in applicability in this specific
area. It was originated with some leaps of faith but has not aggressively been defended yet. Until
then it is primarily defended using anecdotal evidence. We all have to do that at times, for sure,
but I make patients aware when that is the case. ■
12/2/2015

JasonL
Member Since: 04/13/00
Post: 89 of 118

You would think that after all these years, someone would have published something that
supported this in the world of TMD. It does seem unscientific to hijack neuro texts, apply
slippery interpretation and then perform a technique claiming a scientific and physiologically
sound protocol. Some are easily convinced; others require actual evidence, replication, etc.-you
know, the scientific method.
Skepticism does not imply a negative opinion-it implies a questioning opinion, the need for
evidence to support any claim. And when that evidence is so dramatically lacking ... well, then
the technique is filed in the round bin (along with acupuncture, homeopathy, reiki and others). ■
12/2/2015

tmjandsleepDave
Member Since: 10/07/03
Post: 90 of 118

Thank you, Jason-I understand your meaning. I would only add this suggestion for your
consideration: Almost all new and novel ideas started off as thoughts from someone's head,
which were usually just evolutions of the original thought from the "old" paradigms.
As humans we have a history of laughing at, and vigorously fighting, something new. When
the first pediatrician noted that by not washing his hands between patients, he was spreading
infectious diseases to his pediatric patients, and that washing his hands reduced this significantly, do you know the allopathic medical community just laughed him off and thought he
was a quack? Of course, now we know better. But why the skepticism to begin with? Why not
be open? As Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." ■

12/2/2015

JasonL
Member Since: 04/13/00
Post: 92 of 118

Along those same lines, bloodletting was done for many years, and strongly defended long
after it was known it was not effective. Why defend a treatment that has been demonstrated not
to work? The technique being described is no longer new. The plausibility is weak, so evidence
demonstrating it would have a high hurdle to get over.
I consider myself quite open to new and exciting things. I look at plausibility first, and this
relates to my current understanding (or lack of) in the field in question. If interested, I explore
and ask questions, and find references. (Randomized controlled trials would be ideal.) In some
cases, there turns out to be loads of evidence, and I am able to adjust my opinion accordingly
(roughly done Bayesian Analysis?). How about ole Doc Silverman, who thought he had a fi x for
infant blindness? First test was very promising, second test was blinded, and not as promising.
He had the integrity and courage to test his success for validity and found it wasn't what he
thought. I think there is a Cochrane award named after him now. ■

12/2/2015

tmjandsleepDave
Member Since: 10/07/03
Post: 94 of 118

Thanks, Jason. If I had to hazard a guess as to why it's taking so long-and, really, 15 years
is not that long for a "new" discovery-it would be because of the general resistance to new
things. I know that Dr. Olmos is working on validation studies via university dental schools in
this country and Australia, but they take time. Until the outcome comes out, I again invite the
open-mindedness you said you possess.
And about the bloodletting: They were doing it for everything-all kinds of illnesses-until
someone decided to test it. And though it was deemed to be useless, it was very useful in the treatment
of hypertension (what we now know to be HTN, and for obvious reasons). Just a factoid! ■
12/2/2015

OCTOBER 2016 // dentaltown.com

http://www.dentaltown.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Dentaltown October 2016