> > Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 people > and 28 people. >
Ah, here's the heart of the problem. No, Sam, it isn't. It's -- I'd call it two studies and an experiment I guess -- that tested the same hypothesis. According to your nomenclature here, all trials for the same drug are a single study. And mutually responsible for one another's methodology. And, according to you, everything anyone remotely affiliated with them may have said in an interview... > PURE BS! > If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything they > ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. > I don't recall ever saying this... I'd get into what I might have said if I had participated in whatever thread you are talking about, but let's cut to the chase. You have no clue. You just know you don't like it. I suppose you're entitled to this position, but don't ask me to take it (or you) seriously at this point. NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the > equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're inferior. Whatever, dude, you're still talking about something that's completely beside the point. Concentrate on Larry's journal article. What is wrong with the science? > No, I'm saying it was a publicity stunt that for a radio station that some people took seriously. different set of events. > Again if it was tied to anything right > leaning it would be bunk before it started. Now miraculously science > can never be wrong. > Your paranoia is getting on top of you. I am saying that if there is something wrong with the journal article -- besides your moral indignation at something said by someone that did not even participate-- then speak up. And learn the freaking difference between a hypothesis and a clinical study for fuck's sake > IĀ decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who > DON'T AGREE WITH ME. > so? Is that in the journal article that Larry posted? Is it part of the selection criteria, or does it affect the sample size? You're offended. I'm sad you're sad. It still doesn't "see what the scientists had to say" mean "predetermined". No matter how sad or offended you are. > That's what Larry claimed and that's why we're discussing it. Do you > not pay attention? > I don't give a fuck what Larry said. That might be why you're... doing whatever you are doing, but I am here because a whiny little bitch like you that's all "wa wa wa the man said mean things about my beliefs" needs to be called on his crap every so often and since I'm in the mood for it. So, are you actually saying that anyone who knows anyone who has ever said a rude thing about neo-cons is automatically incapable of objective science? No wait,`anyone who is testing a hypothesis that in other circumstances was tested by someone who knows someone who once said that someone who thinks like you do might possibly have his head up his ass... and you know what, anyone who thinks the way you do MUST have his head up his ass. Wow. Well, my work here is done. Gawd knows how much science that little tirade invalidated not, of course, that you would believe it anyway. I added the "teeny-weeny" surprise but you should realize what outcome > they expected without me spelling it out over and over and over again. > expected outcome != predetermined outcome ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346947 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
