I just read through the comments down to the bottom of the page and pasted your comment below the asterisks, so that you know the context without searching for it. You made a comment on interpreting biomedical research and using the gold standard in biomedical research.
Does the Lancet article you posted on the 40 year old woman's Gallstones have the characteristics of a randomized controlled trial used to obtain scientific fact?
To me and to most people who had a high school Science class, it would seem self-serving to require a controlled trial ONLY FOR YOUR OPPONENT to prove his point. But NOT in order FOR YOU to prove your point that the bowel matter that initially came out (in the case of the 40 year old woman in the article) was not some kind of green stone, but green feces. You give your opponent a harder scientific test to pass than yourself. That this is unfair is not even mentioned by you. Nor does it seem to matter.
Since you know what the gold standard would be, what do you see as the "control?"
Subject: Re: so do stones float or not?
From: resurrectionist | All resurrectionist's Messages |
Date: 5/25/2005 3:55:00 PM ( 29 h ago ) ... viewed 18 times since Feb 20 2005
0 of 1 (0%) persons found this message helpful. Hide votes What is this?
Was this message helpful to you? Yes No Hide this question
tell you what - a simple exercise in the interpretation of biomedical research:
what are the characteristics of a prospective randomised controlled trial and why is it the gold standard for assessing a treatment?
also another point that intrigues me - how is the Liver Flush an alternative treatment when it was written up in the Lancet. does the passage of time make something alternative?