Dangerous Goods, both you and johng are trying to deny what is plain as the hand in front of your face. Once again you employ a risible grasp of the scientific method to avoid the obvious conclusion of the Lancet paper. If you can really make some valid criticisms of the Lancet paper please present them - if not put up and shut up!
You seem to have a fixation with this idea of controls and gold standards. Please go and read some scientific books before making the same mistake again and again. I have not changed from talking about the gold standard to the scientific approach! You are taking liberties now, misquoting me. Rather dishonest in fact.
So don't try and pull the wool over the eyes of the readers DP!
If it's anyone's fixation it's yours. You and those who share your viewpoints want to test anything under the sun that is called alternative (method) by using the gold standard (of science).
Since you said you prefer not to trawl through everyone's posts in order to understand what was said, then trawl through your own. Find where you use the terms interchangeably, since you evidently don't belive my description of what you said, and answer the question.
You have really lost me now Dangerous Mind. You don't understand these things - unfortunate but true. Please try doing some reading before posting if you want a reply.
sorry res, but i think the above poster made a very valid point that you again are ignoring. that lancet article is hardly conclusive. I've told you of cases that show that your conclusive rule has holes, yet you ignore these. hardly scientific. i know why you ignore them, they don't fit your theory, therefore impossible.
You want to prove to everyone you're right about not needing controls, you should explain your reasons. Saying it's not needed because it's not needed is hardly an acceptable argument.
In your posts you have asked people to explain themselves and frequently criticized the intelligence of the person whose answer didn't meet your standard for that question.
Yet when I asked you to further define your terms, you refused. You finally said you didn't see any "control" in the Lancet article. But then you added that it wasn't needed. So I guess it will take another bunch of posts to get an answer from you as to why a "control" isn't needed in this case--based on your past behavior.
Why don't you put it on the table and explain why you do not see a need for a control in this article. Instead of playing word games by hiding your own definitions of something while demanding definitions of others and then saying it isn't so. Why should anyone take your word for it? You may have an extensive background in what you have been talking about, however there isn't any way of proving that is there? Anyone can add anything or say anything they want about their background on the internet. So we do the best we can by sharing what we know. So, what do you know about the matter of control not being needed in the Lancet example? Why hide behind an attitude of "if you keep asking about control you should know the answer to your question?" What about the many people who read this forum who don't know why the control is not needed, from your point of view--or never heard of "control" in an experiment?
Why you would think/react as if this was some sort of tick question I do not understand. If you are well versed in your scientific literature then you know very well that it highly important which terms are used in an experiment and how they are used. In highly controversial matters in Science every word in the discussion or conclusion is fought over if there is going to be doubt that the conclusion(s) do follow from the results of the experiment. That's right, some scientists hate to leave any sense of doubt in their conclusions so they make CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE OVERREACHING. The conclusions go beyond what is supported by the experimental results of the experiment/test they just ran. They overgeneralize as their conclusions go beyond the data.
1.Something that you prove not using the gold standard is not as good as something proven by the gold standard.
2. You did not see a control in the Lancet article; therefore, not proven by gold standard.
3. So how can you say the conclusion you favor has the indelible stamp of a proven scientfic fact, applicable to everyone, without having been tested by using the gold standard?
Dangerous Goods, you still don't understand a post worded as to be comprehensible by someone with a secondary school education. What don't you understand about this - a control was not needed! You are confused about things.
A prospective randomised controlled trial is the gold standard for assessin an intervention. Do you see your error now? I shouldn't have to educate you but I will try. Not all therapies can be assessed by PRCT BTW. Ideally the trial should be double blind but again this is not possible for all interventions.
"...you still don't understand a post worded as to be comprehensible by someone with a secondary school education." Oh, really? How does your statement lend support to your argument that liver flushing produces green feces? Got any empirical proof?
If you were in a high school Science class and the teacher gave you the assignment to show whether or not the results of a test were obtained through the method meeting that of the gold standard (that you usually talk about), you would give reply after reply without answering the question? What if you were the teacher, how would you like the non-responsive answer that you gave to someone else, given to you? Would you tell yourself you don't understand high school level posts, or would you begin to think the non-responsive answer is an example of someone trying to bluff their way through something?
Now you are trying another bluff. You said that the control was not needed because that is required only in assessing an intervention. Give me some references for this on the internet where everyone can read it. I want to know on what basis you are making this statement. What authority is proclaiming this principle that you want to use (in this case)? Do you have any favorite supporting examples for this statement on when you use control?
You have a lot of assumed assumptions operating in the Lancet example for you to infer from the woman's surgery and subsequent lab tests that all green excreted matter is feces, and somehow... this leads to the conclusion that liver flushing does not work (does not get rid of stones).
Is surgery an intervention? And how would one determine this? Ask you? Take a poll?
Look at the definition of the gold standard in scientific investigations? Is surgery an example of the definition of the gold standard in scientific investigations? These are all unaswered questions that you have made assumptions for to suit your end result rather than to suit the requirements of meeting that highly touted gold standard of science in medicine.
Is the doctor performing the surgery a scientist when he does the gallbladder surgery? Do scientists do surgeries (in this case)? And when the surgery is over he goes back to being a doctor? Your method of extracting the real gallstones, according to you, was surgery, not the scientific method. Unless you think surgery is the scientific method. No one knows if the comparison of Gallstones came from the same woman, the Lancet article doesn't say. Now, unless you know the woman involved or the writers, or the surgeon, you don't know either. And this is supposed to be a science article? Nothing is to be assumed in science especially facts over which there is a great deal of controversy. There is a great deal of controversy over what stones are expelled during a liver flush.
You and the writers of the Lancet article want to decide this WITHOUT an experiment that meets the gold standard of science. If your method isn't any good, your results aren't any good. And then you cannot generalize to what other people's Liver Flush results might be. It is a logical fallacy to infer that the results this woman got from her liver flush is what millions of other people would get if they did a liver flush. She is only one person not a representative sample. Do you remember that part, from your study of the requirements for scientific investigations meeting the gold standard since you made claims to being erudite?
There are other problems with your conclusion that other people have painstakingly pointed out. She or the writers decided to give a very small amount of detail on how she followed The Liver Flush instructions from day to day. And she didn't finish doing the liver flush. These are two of the major problems that prevent you from generalizing to everyone.
There wasn't any mention of how long the green sample were exposed to air before they
were frozen. So no one knows, it could have been any amount of time. Is that right?
I've read these liver flush stones have to be exposed to weak, winter sun, before being frozen was that mentioned in the Lancet article as having been done?
Why wasn't the woman's green feces, you like to call it, compared to:
1. someone's results who knew how to do a liver flush
2. someone's results who didn't do any liver flush
You said the controlled trial is used in intervention to asses therapy. What does that mean? Doctors intervene with surgury, is that a therapy? And please don't answer that surgery is surgery and therapy is therapy. Therapy sounds like it could be a cure for something. Is surgery a cure for something? If so, what would be some examples of cures surgery has achieved?
Can I just compare the results of two different processes, surgery and liver flushing, not knowing what I got (without adequate controls to help compare what I have obtained) and tell people that I know these results have scientific validity? You appear motivated to think so because you agree with the Lancet conclusion.
If you had been listening during your secondary education while in science class you would have heard the instructor explain the experimental method as the cornerstone of science and the importance of being objective.
definitions for those who find it useful:
empiricism..the philosophical doctrine that sensory experience is the only source of ..............knowledge
............the forumualtion of scientific laws by the process of observation and ..............experimentation
Dangerous Goods your posts are really not much use. You ask for empirical evidence which has been posted already above.
You still do not comprehend what I have been trying to tell you. You are obviously a hopeless case. Hence it is pointless having a conversation with you about the scientific method.
For your information there have been PRCTs of all sorts of interventions, and surgery is no exception. There have been trials with dummy incisions etc - there was a study published last year I think that proved that arthroscopic lavage was no better than simply following the perioperative regimen.
Still you persist with your erroneous understanding of what a control is for, forgetting that Gallstones and faeces have been analysed many times before.
Believe what you want, since obviously nothing will persuade you.
I suggest you read the Lancet report again.
It was vague.
There was NO MENTION OF A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS which would have given the Chemical Composition of the 'stones'
The in vitro attempt to reproduce similar stone from Olive Oil and Lemon Juice only had a result after using Potassium Hydroxide ( caustic potash)to cause precipitation ???
Hardly mimicking the human digestive process.
The objects that were produced where 'White' But this did not seem to have aroused any interest.
The Lancet report was easily seen to be flawed and unhelpful either to the Medicos or the Laymen.
I would like to see this subject brought to a proper scientific conclusion.
Either the Medicos are wrong or the Advocates of the Oil/Juice Cleanse are wrong.
Both sides have a vested interest in this not being settled.
I have done the cleanse. It seemed to have worked OK. But until I am satisfied that the Green Stones are really Gallstones I cannot in all concience make such a claim.
Remember purging the gut if not traumatic, often has a benificial effect.
It should be a pretty simple thing for a chemist to conduct a DEFINATIVE ANALYSIS on the 'green stones or whatever they wish to call them' any analist should be able to do a Qualatitive analysis and a Quantative Analysis and show the Chemical Composition of these 'Green stones' This could then EASILY be compared to analyses of KNOWN Gallstones taken from patients after operation or from cadavers.
I note that the Lancet test report refered to looking at the Green Objects through a Microscope, well! Very entertaing for them no doubt but an ordinary microscope tells NOTHING about the Chemical Comosition of anything.
I also note that the attempt to create the 'Green stones' in the lab appeared to have PRODUCED 'WHITE STONES!'. There seemed to be no curiosity as to why the Green stones had not been recreated in the laboratory. ???? where is the Science ???
Regarding absurd conspiry theories and the vested interests of the Medical Proffession, yes there are always medicos who resist any new information.
Remember Louis Pasteur ( a Chemist) was almost LYNCHED when he tried to tell the Medical world that it was the DOCTORS who were responsible for hundreds of patients deaths through bad hygiene.
On the other hand dont loose sight of the fact that there are a whole bunch of "Holistic or Alternative" purveyors of remedies, which may be the same or variations of the self help procedures such as the Olive Oil/Lemon Juice but which these persons would have you believe are 'Better' just send them a check.
please explain to me why you think a control is needed. I think you have got the wrong end of the stick about the idea of a controlled trial personally
You explain to me why I should explain to you why a control is needed.
You, as well as others, have REPEATEDLY brought up how liver flushing lacks credence for you due to anecdotal evidence, how it needs scientific evidence. If you will read through my posts on "tests... and testing in Lancet" above you will see what I am asking you to post. Why don't you?
You have on several posts made comments about your tremendous knowledge of the body, your ability to write to medical journals, and other things like your experience in feeling gallstones, all in attempts to enlighten liver flushers on how you come to your conclusions. These were statements to show you have concrete evidence for what you say. To show you stand on solid ground when you say something.
Is simply saying something like "that article is conclusive" PROVE it is conclusive?
Why don't you discuss the details and SHOW how it is conclusive? After all isn't that what Science is about? You run an experiement, come to a conclusion (hopefully the one you were looking for...) and then SHOW HOW YOU REACHED THAT CONCLUSION. You have not done that except to say that the conclusion is conclusive. You haven't done anything except to reiterate for everyone that "the conclusion is the conclusion."
What do you prove by saying that, tell me. Because I don't think you prove anything.
What about the lab reports of others on what was analyzed and found in their stones?
You did not find that conclusive because you wanted to be able to SEE the lab report.
Simply saying it was conclusive by that liver flusher did not convince you. Fair enough. Someone posted a lab report of his stones on some website, that didn't convince you either. Then why should someone else be convinced simply because you picked this Lancet article to be conclusive? Are you something special? Don't the same rules apply to what you are trying to prove as they do to everyone else? Or don't you play fair? I want to be able to SEE where you see the control.
It seems everyone on this planet, including you, would be a GREAT ADMIRER of the scientific method UNTIL THEY ARE ASKED TO MEASURE UP TO IT!!! Then they gradually being to act like they don't know anything about it. They want it 'SPLAINED to them
why would I be asking for discussion of how the scientific method of investigation is used in the Lancet article--when you have declared yourself a lover of the gold standard of the scientific method in previous posts.
You are holding everyone up to the scientific method, so explain how the Lancet article stands up to it. In order for you to be such a believer in the gold standard of science that is found in medicine, you have to know what it is. During certain times of the year there there is one ad after another on T.V. saying how this or that drug meets the gold standard of science. So this is a popular idea: drugs meet the gold standard of science. Surely, you know what you are talking about when you tout the gold standard.
I have explained in many different ways why I would like to SEE where you see the "control" from someone who has so much respect for the gold standard of investigation. (I think you said that for a scientist the "main qualification is faith in the scientific method." )
It was a rhetorical question since anyone who knows about the scientific method would realise a control is not necessary for this kind of study. You show the same level of scientific ignorance as Dangerous Goods! If you want to make criticisms of the Science I suggest you learn some first!
This article shows that green blobs are not gallstones. How can you argue otherwise? Rubbish about "controls" doesn't cut it. There IS no control and I have never said there is. If you knew what a control was for, you would realise why one is not necessary.
I'm not sure where your comments about the scientific method come from - I am quite conversant with the scientific method, as my posts will verify. You however are not.
Can you understand what I'm saying - there IS no control because a control is not needed.
sorry res, but i think the above poster made a very valid point that you again are ignoring. that lancet article is hardly conclusive. I've told you of cases that show that your conclusive rule has holes, yet you ignore these. hardly scientific. i know why you ignore them, they don't fit your theory, therefore impossible.
Images Description Liver Cleanse/Flush Recipe Rules
Home
Re: dodging again 
