Next- Study shows that studies of medical studies are wrong.
To: new cruelty
2 posted on
07/15/2005 6:26:43 AM PDT by
cripplecreek
(If a democrats lips are moving, they're lying.)
To: new cruelty
This is like: "Everything I say is a lie."
3 posted on
07/15/2005 6:27:47 AM PDT by
Flightdeck
(Like the turtle, science makes progress only with its neck out.)
To: new cruelty
To change that horrendous statistic, simply ban studies on things that have already been studied.
5 posted on
07/15/2005 6:31:57 AM PDT by
muawiyah
(/sarcasm and invective)
To: new cruelty
Back when I was doing research I was astounded by the number of studies where the author stated something like, "I selected this particular set of data because it will tend to prove my hypothesis." That said, the recent JAMA issue overstated the results. There is only one way to the Truth, and that is through larger samples with smaller statistical error.
6 posted on
07/15/2005 6:32:06 AM PDT by
darth
To: new cruelty
Now tell me, is the study that determined the accuracy of the other studies subject to the same scrutiny, and if so, is it safe to assume that we have a 2 out of 3 chance of accuracy?
Ah, coffee.
7 posted on
07/15/2005 6:34:36 AM PDT by
AbeKrieger
(Islam is the virus that causes al-Qaeda.)
To: new cruelty
Doctors need to make a buck. So what if they don't work.
8 posted on
07/15/2005 6:35:05 AM PDT by
Jimbaugh
(They will not get away with this. Developing . . . . .)
To: new cruelty
From the researchers educated in our schools....
9 posted on
07/15/2005 6:36:18 AM PDT by
eagle11
To: new cruelty
There is a 33.3% chance that this study is wrong?
10 posted on
07/15/2005 6:38:34 AM PDT by
meowmeow
(Gardeners for Global Warming)
To: new cruelty
So there is a 33.3% chance this study is wrong, but if it is wrong, then the theory that 1/3 of all studies is wrong is correct, hence it is not wrong, but there is a chance that it is wrong and......
WHO'S ON FIRST?
11 posted on
07/15/2005 6:41:59 AM PDT by
domenad
To: new cruelty
13 posted on
07/15/2005 6:44:44 AM PDT by
Puddleglum
(Thank God the Boston blowhard lost)
To: new cruelty
I was gonna ask how we know this study isn't wrong? lol
16 posted on
07/15/2005 6:52:19 AM PDT by
mlc9852
To: new cruelty
"We all need to start thinking more critically." Because we can't trust most scientists. Mixing science and politics produces lies.
17 posted on
07/15/2005 7:04:15 AM PDT by
Reeses
To: new cruelty
"Contradicted and potentially exaggerated findings are not uncommon in the most visible and most influential original clinical research,'' said study author Dr. John Ioannidis, a researcher at the University of Ioannina in Greece. It seems to me that the reason most original clinical research is exaggerated and controversial is because that is the way hacks generate their federal grants.
"Initial study finds that mother's milk is bad for babies, federal funding for further research is needed."
After further research it turns out is not as serious as they had originally thought.
18 posted on
07/15/2005 7:06:16 AM PDT by
oldbrowser
(There is something Jerry Springerish about the democrats.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson