On Sep 30, 2:41*pm, Dogman wrote:
http://blog.ted.com/2012/09/27/5-pre...tors-had-no-id...

"'Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly
designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird,
unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques that are
flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of
treatments,” writes Goldacre in his book. 'When trials throw up
results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide
them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted
picture of any drug’s true effects.'"

Yet another reason that most "studies" today are mostly propaganda,
and, in many ways, not much different than a bunch of anecdotes.

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...gy-its-present...

"Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence"
"Epidemiology, in its present form, a poor substitute for anecdote."

"It is not to be wondered at that anecdotal evidence is the major
source of knowledge in this subject, practical epidemiology has failed
the patient completely, and confidence in the system has been badly
affected."

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman


This stunning indictment comes from the guy who claims
to have used the "scientific method" to conclude:

HIV is harmless
HIV is not the cause of AIDS
AIDS is caused by diet and lack of sleep
No virus can cause cancer
HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer

And he's going to lecture us on studies? The truth is dogman's
method is that he starts with pre-conceived notions and then
ignores studies that don't agree with those notions.
In the cases above, that is one hell of a mountain of
studies and scientific evidence. And of course, he has no
studies that back up his kook notions. His idea of science
is to rely on a paper written back in 1985, when little was
known, that speculated on what might be a cause of AIDS.

nuff said.....