Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] The olden days, was: e-6 processing

Subject: Re: [OM] The olden days, was: e-6 processing
From: Fernando Gonzalez Gentile <fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:14:55 -0300
I won't bait Chuck - I shall not discuss this point here _ :-) - not 
again. I know what you think about this, and fortunately your thoughts 
are in the archives. You are completely free to follow the ideas about 
which you are convinced. I will not try to convince you on another point 
of view, and consequentially this implies I do have a different point of 
view; which I may change when enough evidence arises _ that moment has 
not come yet.

IMHO - :-)

Fernando.

Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Unfortunately, everything that's known about cholesterol as a risk 
> factor for heart disease is based on epdemiological data.  There really 
> is no medicine involved... just statistics and a lot of really bad 
> statistics and, yes, even dishonest statistics at that.  And if a drug 
> company is involved in the funding you can be sure the statistics are 
> dishonest and this is how it's done:
> <http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138>
>
> Start here for the antidote
> <http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm>
>
> And don't be like my doctor who freely admits that he has no statistical 
> training whatsoever and can only read the summaries of many papers with 
> an epidemiological basis.  As Ranvskov points out it is not uncommon for 
> the summaries of such papers to make specific claims for the study that 
> are in no way supported by the actual data presented in the paper.  I 
> didn't believe that when I first read it but have since verified it in a 
> few short papers that were small enough for me to comprehend.  How 
> prevalent is it?  I don't really know except that I picked two three 
> page papers at random based only on short length.  Both papers made 
> claims in the summary not supported by the data in the paper.  What ever 
> happened to peer review????  I can only conclude that the "peers" are 
> involved as well.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
>   
>> I'll keep my promise: I shall never again discuss about statins with 
>> you, Chuck - anyone is free to decide what he thinks is best.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>     
>>> That's easy.  Just don't take statins.
>>> <http://thincs.org/>
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>   
>>>       
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
>> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1811 - Release Date: 11/25/2008 
>> 8:29 AM
>>
>>     

-- 
Dr. Fernando González Gentile M.D.
Av.L.P.Ponce 1526B - 11600 Montevideo, Uruguay.
Phone: +598 2 7084858
Fax:      +598 2 7087396
<fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>



-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz