Posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 14:57:17
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 14:48:09
> >In the era in consideration, publication of >negative studies almost never occurred.
>
> There you go.
>
> >Moreover, negative studies teach us nothing, as >we cannot discrimate between failed methodology >and failed drug.
>
> Oh, I see, we only pay attention to postitive trials. That makes a lot of sense.
>
> >We don't take older cars off the road because >they don't meet current emissions/efficiencies >standards, so why should we retrospectively >reassess these drugs based on data collected for >other purposes?
>
> Well, if that level of significance is enough for you then great.
>
> >IMHO, he fished around until he found the >statistics he liked, and he published those and >those alone.
>
> If that is your take.
>
> Linkadge
>This is my feeling...It it ain't broke don't fix it..Scott feels the best he has felt in years on Nardil so why tamper..I'd be ecstactic if I was him.
poster:bulldog2
thread:823248
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080412/msgs/824296.html