As described on the home page, there have been many ways to describe non-drug or non-pharmaceutical methods for treating illness. The tendency is either this or that. A gulf exists between so called natural therapies and what is termed mainstream or conventional methods. To integrate, removes this barrier and embraces the use of any treatment that is above all else as safe as possible but must have a successful result.
It could be a pharmaceutical drug or perhaps the use of Reiki methods – depends on the case in question.
The problems arise when the treatment provider has personal bias against one treatment type over another irrespective of its merits and safety.
Integration is the ideal. It involves letting go of bias, intolerance and yes, ego. But also it means adhering to the evidence behind the choices and ensuring a better, safer treatment is not with-held from the patient.
It is standard medical policy to judge treatments based on EBM, or ‘evidenced based medicine’. This term is laudable and reflects the need to protect the patient from potential harm and to provide proven, safe treatments. However the unintended consequence divides treatments into EBM, which works and non-EBM therefore by erroneous implication “doesn’t work”. I think the reader will see the flaw in that reasoning. Evidence can be ranked in degrees of strength according to experts.
Unfortunately the EBM concept can also be used by parties with opinions to shut down treatments which have an excellent record of benefit, minimal if any harm – but lack RCT (randomised clinical trials hence not EBM). Such trials are extremely expensive and almost exclusively confined to pharmaceutical chemicals as a result.
So the EBM model is a good concept but must be used wisely.
Small trials, experience, evidence from case studies and observation over time can be valid parameters of evidence. We are only too aware of many EBM drugs that have taken a toll on morbidity and mortality – to be eventually withdrawn from the market and not too promptly I should add. Whilst the majority or clinical trials and evidence is valid, more often we are seeing ‘statistical gymnastics’ or ‘creative statistics’ to exaggerate a medical drug’s benefits and downplay harms.
For example a certain well known drug has a much acclaimed 30-50% benefit for reducing a heart risk – sounds impressive. But in real terms, it means only 1% of those taking it will get any benefit at all.
So the EBM model is a good concept but must be used wisely – not as a political, marketing or controlling device.
Please note that by coming to this clinic it is assumed you have explored main-stream treatments based on standard ‘Best Practice’ guidelines and wish to review other valid options.
Dr Reeder, whilst a registered medical practitioner, is not a regular GP or medical specialist and therefore does not offer general practice services or pharmaceutical treatments. Please refer to the ‘About Us’ page for more information.
Any person may consult with Dr. Reeder. You still retain your usual general practitioner and other health providers. All consultations are private and confidential. Dr Reeder may send a letter to your GP with a summary of your consultation. You can indicate if you do not want this service.
Yes, you can if you have GP cover as Dr Reeder is not a ‘specialist’, but is a registered medical practitioner. Check with your insurer to be sure what limits they have for each consultation or other medical service.
Usually 1-2 weeks.
We allow an hour for new patients. This allows time to go through your medical history. Dr Reeder can answer all your questions and he will give you a plan of action according to your particular health issues. Some consultations may not require an hour assessment if a non-complex issue – please give some indication to staff if you think a shorter time would suffice.
Its a very good idea to come well prepared with as much relevant material and in particular a bullet point timeline of your history, lab results, treatments etc. This can reduce time for Dr Reeder to get all the medical history at your consultation and better allow time for the actual problem and solutions.
Please note though, sending in the data beforehand is fine, but Dr Reeder will not necessarily look over this information until your actual appointment – unless you give permission to prepare for the consultation in which case there will be the usual fee for time.
Many advances in laboratory investigations exist internationally but are rarely available to doctors via regular laboratories – at least in New Zealand. These ‘functional’ tests are designed to assess how systems are coping, where faults exist and how interventions can be applied. Examples of these biomedical tests are available on this website on the ‘Downloads’ page.