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." )