The article, written by a former Major League baseball player, describes his first hand experience with an unusual treatment for tendinitis. In this treatment, the athlete has been injected with a combination of stem cells and PRP. The concern I have online casino no deposit bonus uk with the article that little scientific evidence that a treatment is recommended, and is explained by a justification that is used for other treatments in the past. Moreover, this is incredibly expensive (you thought online casino no deposit bonus uk your 20 online casino no deposit bonus uk co-pay was too high, they want almost 5000 for this treatment), and the author recommends the use of athletes who have no symptoms. There is a point the writer makes with which I agree - doctors need to have an open mind. But if the Spirit means open to me, that just an objective treatment, data collection and analysis of these data. From that to the best degree you can, and then continue with the study of the treatment. If that means that the evaluation of a drug, an herbal supplement, a traditional holistic therapy, or surgery, in online casino no deposit bonus uk order. But when it comes to selling something wrapped in a poor online casino no deposit bonus uk scientific explanation is, I feel compelled to stand up and so people know that I think she will be cheated. I think that's why many doctors apparently upset with the article.
So instead of me talking about it, what do you think?
Sports Illustrated is irresponsible to publish these?
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий