A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Studies" and anecdotes.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 3rd, 2012, 04:18 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default "Studies" and anecdotes.

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.

  #12  
Old October 3rd, 2012, 05:09 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default "Studies" and anecdotes.

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
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.


There must be a contest going on somewhere for the clueless dimwit who
uses the most straw man arguments in a single post.

James is apparently after your record, Trader Boy. Everyone knows that
you're the straw man champion for this newsgroup, and it's apparently
a lifetime appointment.

James would stand a better chance in a different newsgroup (e.g.,
alt.support.voodoo), because there is no way he could ever unseat you
here.

I'm going to forward his name to LinkedIn. So that anyone looking for
a clueless dimwit, someone who can't read for comprehension, and is
forced to use straw men arguments, or no arguments at all, can more
easily find him.

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.


I don't ignore any studies. I read them all, and when some of them
don't adhere to the Scientific Method (and most don't, as my post
clearly illustrated), I discard them.

Given that you still don't understand what the Scientific Method
actually is, and isn't, you're forced to cling to CRAP and
psychobabble.

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,


Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the
conclusion that low-carb diets don't work, are bad for our health,
etc.

Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the
conclusion that trans fats are bad for our health.

Look at the mountain of studies that one has to ignore to come to the
conclusion that global warming is real, and that "we're all gonna
die!" in a few years.

Look at the mountain of studies that one has to ignore to come to the
conclusion that it's smart to tell diabetics to eat MORE carbs,
especially "healthy whole grains."

I could go on indefinitely, but you get the idea.

I.e., "mountains of studies" don't mean ****.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

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.


I explained that already. You just can't understand me.

Because you may be the dumbest person in New Jersey, including Snooki
Polizzi.

No, make that the entire East Coast.

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.


Until just recently, the NIH had all kinds of "studies" that showed
that trans fats weren't bad for you, that sugar is good for you, and
still maintains that low-carb diets are unhealthy, and that wheat is
actually good for you, etc.

The NIH is just as political, and just as greedy, as any other
organization.

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.


If a study comports with the Scientific Method, it's a study. If it
doesn't, it's a "study."

In the same way that I'm smart, and you're "smart."

Asshole.

.......................//)
.....................,/../
..................../..../
..............//'...'/`
.........../'/.../..../......./\
.........('(.......... ~/'...')
..........\.................'...../
...........''...\.......... _.
.............\..............(
...............\.............\...

--
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
  #13  
Old October 3rd, 2012, 05:40 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default "Studies" and anecdotes.

On 10/3/2012 1:09 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
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.


There must be a contest going on somewhere for the clueless dimwit who
uses the most straw man arguments in a single post.

James is apparently after your record, Trader Boy. Everyone knows that
you're the straw man champion for this newsgroup, and it's apparently
a lifetime appointment.

James would stand a better chance in a different newsgroup (e.g.,
alt.support.voodoo), because there is no way he could ever unseat you
here.

I'm going to forward his name to LinkedIn. So that anyone looking for
a clueless dimwit, someone who can't read for comprehension, and is
forced to use straw men arguments, or no arguments at all, can more
easily find him.

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.


I don't ignore any studies. I read them all, and when some of them
don't adhere to the Scientific Method (and most don't, as my post
clearly illustrated), I discard them.

Given that you still don't understand what the Scientific Method
actually is, and isn't, you're forced to cling to CRAP and
psychobabble.


So anecdotes are important to the Scientific Method by randomized
controlled studies are not. Curious and interesting.

You're beginning to sound like George Hammond of SPOG (Scientific
Proof Of God) fame.

Anyway, angry ad hominem attacks don't make for good arguments.


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,


Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the
conclusion that low-carb diets don't work, are bad for our health,
etc.

Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the
conclusion that trans fats are bad for our health.

Look at the mountain of studies that one has to ignore to come to the
conclusion that global warming is real, and that "we're all gonna
die!" in a few years.

Look at the mountain of studies that one has to ignore to come to the
conclusion that it's smart to tell diabetics to eat MORE carbs,
especially "healthy whole grains."

I could go on indefinitely, but you get the idea.

I.e., "mountains of studies" don't mean ****.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

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.


I explained that already. You just can't understand me.

Because you may be the dumbest person in New Jersey, including Snooki
Polizzi.

No, make that the entire East Coast.

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.


Until just recently, the NIH had all kinds of "studies" that showed
that trans fats weren't bad for you, that sugar is good for you, and
still maintains that low-carb diets are unhealthy, and that wheat is
actually good for you, etc.

The NIH is just as political, and just as greedy, as any other
organization.

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.


If a study comports with the Scientific Method, it's a study. If it
doesn't, it's a "study."

In the same way that I'm smart, and you're "smart."

Asshole.

......................//)
....................,/../
.................../..../
.............//'...'/`
........../'/.../..../......./\
........('(.......... ~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.
............\..............(
..............\.............\...


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BLIMPS REJOICE! "Grilled" At KFC Means You Can Gobble More Pieces OfChicken Than The Original "Boogies On A Bone" Fried Artery-Cloggers! Lil' Barb General Discussion 2 November 25th, 2009 08:47 AM
BUSH NATION: 36.2 Million Human Beings HUNGRY! Your "CompassionateConservative" Says, "Hell, Ah'm Retirin' Soon." Kilicrankie P. Smith General Discussion 2 November 19th, 2008 04:10 PM
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 February 1st, 2007 04:27 PM
Mark Twain's "Smoking is Good for You" , and "Being Fat Can SaveYour Life" Jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 January 20th, 2007 03:20 PM
define "healthy" or "fit" or "athletic" oregonchick General Discussion 7 September 16th, 2006 12:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.