Ask any doctor, chiropractor or medical, about the difference in the language used in the research they read and how it compares to the language used with their interaction with their patients. They will pause and look at you strangely because they’ve never thought about it, then they will emphatically say, “yes, there is a big difference!”
When a doctor is in his clinic, interacting with patients, he needs to have confidence in what he’s doing, and how you’ll respond. I’ve worked for many doctor’s offices, and I’ve seen this at work. Some doctors are more self-assured than others, and they’ll tell their patients with absolute certainty that this or that will happen, even when they are wrong about it. But the patients usually were pretty receptive to this interaction, because they need someone who will guide them with a fatherly hand to set them straight, even they’re hearing something that wasn’t what they wanted to hear.
When you read research though, the language is different. Research is never certain. When you read medical research, they’ll always tell you that more studies need to be done before they know for sure that this works. They’ll tell you that studies are inconclusive, and that they can’t recommend a certain treatment even though they are commenting on their own study that shows pretty clearly that the treatment that they used helped the patients tremendously. You see this bad treatment of good evidence all the time, and I think it may be hurting the progress of good, practical treatment methods. I feel that researchers tip-toe around their educated observations too much, and are withholding valuable information form us doctors.
Look at what this researcher turned doctor said about the subject:
There’s an adage I often think about: “A physician’s job requires the expression of confidence. The researcher’s role is to express doubt.”
This was never more apparent than when I transitioned from the research environment into the clerkships of medical school. The language of decision-making had abruptly changed — in the lab, a year’s worth of experiments is summarized with “seems” and “suggests,” and every assertion is carefully calibrated to acknowledge uncertainty and a high standard for proof.
There needs to be a middle ground. Far too often I see overconfident doctors state “the facts” when they really don’t know what they are talking about. On the other hand, I wish researchers would give the therapies that they examine more credit when they see great results. Give it to us straight. Doctors and researchers, us what you know, and what you don’t know.
Todd Lloyd, DC
Chiropractor in Sonoma
Until very recently, Federal funding for research by chiropractors has been virtually nonexistent. Of the millions of research dollars being given to medical research each year, only a small number of Federal grants have been awarded to projects involving chiropractic.