On 10/3/2012 11:45 AM, wrote:
On Oct 2, 8:22 pm, James Warren wrote:
On 01/10/2012 1:55 PM, Dogman wrote:





On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 05:30:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
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."

This stunning indictment comes from the guy

No, actually, this stunning indictment comes from the British Medical
Journal, Dr. Ben Goldacre, and a "study" published in Nature.

Because I know how much you and James "I'm no sock puppet!" Warren
love "studies"!

I'm merely the messenger, and you know what they say you shouldn't do
to messengers, right?

If you really dislike studies so much, what you replace them with?

It's not that he dislikes studies. He just dislikes ones that
don't agree with his preconceived notions. He'll ignore
a thousand of those, and find one that agrees with his
views and use it. Look at the mountain of studies one
has to ignore to come to the conclusion that HIV is
harmless and not the cause of AIDS, like Dogman
claims. In fact on that one, there isn't even a single
study that shows HIV isn't the
cause of AIDS. I've asked for such a study
repeatedly and all we got were crickets. At the same
time, I've referred him to NIH which has an entire
webpage with links to all the studies done over many
years that show HIV is the cause of AIDS and he calls
that PR hype.


What is the difference between a study and a "study"?

One is a study that supports his view, the other is one
that demolishes it.

Yeah, he seems to be big on confirmation bias but still he
champions the Scientific Method.