The issue in medical and psychological treatment is that the burden of proof falls upon the one trying to establish treatment as effective. It has to be this way to safeguard the public from deleterious medical approaches and fraud. In the case of TBS's there is an additional handicap in establishing effectiveness because the Surgeon General scrutinized the existing research and concluded that residential treatment is ineffective. The hole is much bigger. Practicioners don't have time to read every relevent unless it is in an area of their expertise, and they will weigh consensus from a generally unbiased source far more heavily. Any industry study is properly viewed with great suspicion. Any person conducting a study needs to have their study reviewed with a close eye twords particular affiliations. It doesn't mean that one automatically disreguards the outcome because of the source, but heavy caution and scrutiny needs to be used when you know the conductor of the research stands to gain from the outcome. [ This Message was edited by: Badpuppy on 2006-06-11 18:34 ]
