 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Tinnitus / October 2007Limitations of randomised controlled trials
Yea, for a while, people are talked into believing that controlled trials tell the "truth of science". http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6991/1410 On Oct 1, 6:28 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yea, for a while, people are talked into believing that controlled > trials tell the "truth of science". > > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6991/1410 You are truly an idiot. I am literally staggered by your stupidity. The article you cite addresses two problems in controlled trials -- selection bias and recruiting subjects, and then suggests strategies for addressing both. In summary, the article addresses methodological problems in constructing such studies. It does NOT advance any argument against the fact that such controlled studies are the cornerstone of treatment evaluation in medical science. On 10 2 , 9 26 , BaldBastardBus...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Oct 1, 6:28 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > argument against the fact that such controlled studies are the > cornerstone of treatment evaluation in medical science. >From the horse's mouth: "Hey, fool. Controlled studies are _how science establishes truth_. Get it? I guess not, But others can see that the latest scientific study on Ginko proves it to be absolutely worthless for tinnitus. Read this: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2273.2004.008...." On Oct 1, 8:28 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 2 , 9 26 , BaldBastardBus...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Read this: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2273.2004.008...." A link to nowhere. Quite a compelling rejoinder. Keep smoking whatever you are smoking (or drinking). I hear the food in China tends to be adulterated with various toxins that can affect the brain. Be wary, for the effects in your case may not be reversible. On 10 2 , 8 24 , BaldBastardBus...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Oct 1, 8:28 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > A link to nowhere. That is the link you gave me. Read again. Quite a compelling rejoinder. Keep smoking > whatever you are smoking (or drinking). > > I hear the food in China tends to be adulterated with various toxins > that can affect the brain. Be wary, for the effects in your case may > not be reversible.- - How do you know that I am a Chinese living in China? I live in Hong Kong. Also, what has the post got to do with the food in China? How about the moon cakes? You see, once a trash, always a trash. Bad habits die hard. > - - On Oct 2, 9:01 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 2 , 8 24 , BaldBastardBus...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > > - - I didn't say you are Chinese. And you live in China if you live in Hong Kong, which has been part of China since 1997. Just in case you missed that. Seems, if your mommy didn't tell you it was true, it must be a lie. > I didn't say you are Chinese. And you live in China if you live in > Hong Kong, which has been part of China since 1997. > > Just in case you missed that. On 10 3 , 7 42 , BaldBastardBus...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Oct 2, 9:01 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - - But what has where I live got to do with the debate? You are introducing some trash into the debate simply to foster what you are and what you have been doing in debate. On Oct 2, 1:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yea, for a while, people are talked into believing that controlled > trials tell the "truth of science". > > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6991/1410 Did you read this article? Its not about the veracity of the outcome is it? This is about patients, and what they want from trials. Tell me how this would affect a trial on tinnitus? Best regards John > On Oct 2, 1:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John He obviously either did not read or did not understand the article, John. Does that surprise you? > On Oct 2, 1:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John The message, or at least one, given out by this article is there are limitations in controlled studies as there are in any kind of studies. As a result, a controlled study is not necessarily one that can tell "truth of science". On Oct 2, 7:45 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 2, 1:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > As a result, a controlled study is not necessarily one that can tell > "truth of science". Sorry, that's not the message at all. On 10 3 , 10 19 , BaldBastardBus...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Oct 2, 7:45 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - - It is at least one of the messages to me. Now, can you show me a kind of study that is without limitations? If you could do that, your "truth of science" would then be told. On Oct 2, 1:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yea, for a while, people are talked into believing that controlled > trials tell the "truth of science". > > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6991/1410 I urge you to read this article a little more closely. The article does not question the veracity of the trial system does it? It discusses the problem of recruiting patients for such a trial, correct? And managing their expectations, especially concerning diseases that have high mortality rates. It also things that post trial analysis has to be more vigilant. Nowhere does it say that the trials lack validity. If you think it does, please be kind enough to point out where it does. Thank you and Best regards John > On Oct 2, 1:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > John In other words these are the limitations of a controlled study. Whenever you have the limitations, you have the imperfection. It is the imperfection that suggests caution to something being the 'truth'. On Oct 4, 1:10 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 2, 1:28 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Whenever you have the limitations, you have the imperfection. It is > the imperfection that suggests caution to something being the 'truth'. Sorry, I asked for you to respond where it shows that it might lack validity. Since you can't find it in this article, you might be able to find it in another article. Furthermore, I do not think the article has any validity when discussing tinnitus, here's why: When it comes to testing tinnitus I do not think for the most part that there would be a problem being tested on a placebo in trial of this kind. I would prefer to be on the new drug rather than the placebo if I had bowel cancer. Since tinnitus is a semi-permanent condition there is no real problem being monitored for some time after treatment. I honestly do not believe my points are a consequence of living on an island, or the fact that I live in a country that has a tradition of protestantism. Best regards John > On Oct 4, 1:10 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - - As I said in my reply to you in another post, you certainly would like to identify yourself with those graduating from Oxford. Yes, they are islanders and you are an islander. So why not include you. Right? Have you watched the movie "My Fair Lady"? I am sure you feel very comfortable with people from Eliza's conclave. On Oct 4, 12:51 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 4, 1:10 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Have you watched the movie "My Fair Lady"? I am sure you feel very > comfortable with people from Eliza's conclave. Could you do me the courtesy of addressing the points in my previous post. If you want to call us islanders in a pejorative manner then please answer the question; which is the most globalised economy in the world today? Since you have such an in-depth knowledge of geopolitics this should be quite a simple exercise. You might want to check your usage of the word conclave, I doubt Eliza ever entertained the notion of meeting surreptitiously or confidential manner with her associates. I gather English is not your first language. Best regards John > On Oct 4, 12:51 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > If you want to call us islanders in a pejorative manner then please > answer the question; I called the way in which you speak indiscriminately on behalf of the group rather than yourself only is reminisicent of the way that the islanders used to speak. which is the most globalised economy in the world > today? >From each time period in history??? What has this got to do with your inferior way of expression? Are you suggesting that the UK economy is the way it is has been due to the way the islanders speak ? Since you have such an in-depth knowledge of geopolitics this > should be quite a simple exercise. > > You might want to check your usage of the word conclave, I doubt Eliza > ever entertained the notion of meeting surreptitiously or confidential > manner with her associates. I gather English is not your first > language. It is not my first language, nor do I think it is your first language. > Best regards > > John- - > > - - On Oct 5, 4:42 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 4, 12:51 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > > - - Please do me the courtesy of addressing the points that I made on the article you made reference to. Your failure to do so might suggest that your original post was due to a lack of understanding on your part. I apologise for my writing style. I clearly am thinking and typing too fast. I am not being discourteous, it is that I am so often in a hurry. Could you explain to me your rather rash assertion that the British have a form of syntax, or a mode of expression that defines them as islanders. I have to say, I think there is something quite xenophobic in your remarks, not just the 'white trash' utterances. I have noticed there is propensity for you to counter with non sequiturs of this nature when you are pushed for collateral to back up your remarks. I do think it is pretty poor show to try to belittle people on the basis of their countries geographical status or the prevailing religion of the land. If this deflects your ability to address the points I have made, so be it. Best regards John > On Oct 5, 4:42 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > Please do me the courtesy of addressing the points that I made on the > article you made reference to. This is not a primary school test, and I wonder what your purpose is in having me address the points which in my view are totally irrelevant to what we have been talking about. However, since you so insist, I will answer your question for the sake of answering it. The most globalized economy in the world a few hundred years ago was the Chinese one, prior to the second world war was the British one, now it is the American one, perhaps after another 50 years it will be the Chinese one. So tell me what kind of inference you can draw from a nation's economy and a bad habit of certain people in a nation. Your failure to do so might suggest > that your original post was due to a lack of understanding on your > part. You have been garbling here and there and expect me to follow your reasoning. Your reasoning is filled with sweeping generalization and has nothing to do with what we have been talking about. > I apologise for my writing style. I clearly am thinking and typing > too fast. I am not being discourteous, it is that I am so often in a > hurry. Could you explain to me your rather rash assertion that the > British have a form of syntax, or a mode of expression that defines > them as islanders. You are making up this generalization. I said a certain way of speaking in which the speaker makes use of 'majority or other people being right' is commonly observed amongst islanders such as the British and the Japanese. Of course not all British or Japanese speak in that manner. Only the unsophisticated ones do and do in a manner that you have done. This is very different from your claim that the "British have a form of syntax, or a mode of expression that defines them as islanders". You have been regenerating my expression into forms that suit you and expect me to follow you to play your little games. > I have to say, I think there is something quite xenophobic in your > remarks, not just the 'white trash' utterances. What is so zenophobic in my remarks? You don't just say something and then treat it to be truth. Am I right when I told you that you should speak on your behalf only and express your own opinion and argue as an individual as opposed to resorting to the disgusting habit of using what "other people" say or think as a bench mark upon which to deliver a verdict on yourself and your interlocutor. Where have I used 'white trash"? The word trash does not need to have any racist connotation in order to be in existence. I have noticed there > is propensity for you to counter with non sequiturs of this nature > when you are pushed for collateral to back up your remarks. Then you have noticed it wrong! Again, it does not mean whatever you say is the bench mark upon which we should proceed with our debate. You have treated yourself to be just a bit too important. Who are you? A judge in the court. You have "noticed"? I have "noticed" you have been producing irrelevance and using rubbish to back up your remarks too. So far you still have not explained the relationship between a nation's economy and a certain aspect in speaking mannerism of a certain class of people in that nation. I do > think it is pretty poor show to try to belittle people on the basis of > their countries geographical status or the prevailing religion of the > land. Show evidence to back up what you have said. That a certain group of people have been found to be associated with certain mannerism of speaking does not mean "belittle people on the basis of their countries geographical status or the prevailing religion of the land". You do have a silly way with big words and sweeping generalizations. Then put them into your own mouth but not into others'. OK? If this deflects your ability to address the points I have > made, so be it. You are exercising a bad habit in which you try to create reality by way of speaking words into the air and in doing so trying to sound 'educated'. So be it. > Best regards > > John- - > > - - On Oct 5, 9:31 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 5, 4:42 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 188 lines] > > > - - You are the one who made claims for this group, not me. Please just answer the question. Did the article you cite question the validity of the double blind trial method? That is, in essence, the only point I would like you to address. It is xenophobic, not zenophobic BTW Best regards John > On Oct 5, 9:31 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 192 lines] > > You are the one who made claims for this group, not me. What is "claims for this group"? What are you talking about? I have made certain observation on the mannerism of speaking of a certain group of people. Big words again? Please just > answer the question. Did the article you cite question the validity > of the double blind trial method? That is, in essence, the only point > I would like you to address. Go and read that article. If you disagree, so be it. Never mind how the researchers operate with what they have come up with. > It is xenophobic, not zenophobic BTW Small-mindedness at work again....... > Best regards > > John- - > > - - On Oct 6, 1:11 pm, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 5, 9:31 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 213 lines] > > > John- - > > - - I thought I was being polite, surely you want to spell correctly, rather than phonetically. I have to say, I think you posted the article without reading it. You hoped it would prove a point, and it did no such thing. There is difference between wanting to be in one group with a potentially fatal disease, that certainly would be my desired outcome. I doubt this senario has ever been the case with a tinnitus trial. On Oct 5, 2:31 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 5, 4:42 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 182 lines] > way of speaking words into the air and in doing so trying to sound > 'educated'. So be it. And you are actually peforming a public service by demonstrating yet again, the unplombed depths of your utter stupidity. I believe you just validated the placebo principles. Your statement demonstrates your belief you would do better on a medication you believed in. > I would prefer to be on the new drug rather than the > placebo if I had bowel cancer. > > Best regards > > John > I believe you just validated the placebo principles. Your statement > demonstrates your belief you would do better on a medication you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > John Hi Janice, If one had a potentially fatal disease such as bowel cancer I would prefer to be on the drug being tested than the placebo, obviously. When it comes to GB I had more than an open mind. I am more than willing to try anything that would mitigate the effects of tinnitus. I have had an overwhelming positive experience with Chinese medicine. It has helped with a number of ailments. The fact it does not help with tinnitus is not the point, otherwise I would lose faith in, and want for a better term, western medicine. Best regards John Proving the placebo effect, again, somewhat. I is good to believe in the medication you take, otherwise it may not work > If one had a potentially fatal disease such as bowel cancer I would > prefer to be on the drug being tested than the placebo, obviously. > When it comes to GB I had more than an open mind. I am more than > willing to try anything that would mitigate the effects of tinnitus. > Best regards > > John
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.