David J. Looney wrote:
Studies from which you can draw
conclusions don't necessarily have to be randomized, blinded, and
controlled, but case studies need carefully chosen controls in order to
be meaningful.
Not necessarily.
Statistics is often used to tease out the independent variables in
"messy" data.
Much of the original AIDS work and identification was done in this way.
It is less reliable, but sometimes you need an answer *now*. Waiting
was unacceptable. People began forming hypotheses and adjusting
behavior long before people knew exactly what was going on.
As better data came in, they narrowed their predictions and hypotheses.
The problem I have with medical "science" is not that they work with
sloppy data. The problem I have is that they don't continuously recheck
their hypotheses as new and better data come in. Often, conclusions
drawn on fairly thin evidence become embedded as facts in the medical
community.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
