Busy week; working on getting a grant and a manuscript revision out the door. In the meantime, Jake has a post on abstinence-only versus "abstinence-plus" education, and why neither is working that well, and Orac discusses a topic I want to get to but it's one of those long 'n' involved posts I don't have a lot of time for right now: the reliability of epidemiological studies.
- Log in to post comments
and Orac discusses a topic I want to get to
Yeah, you really should spend some time on that one. Loved it.
Extract:
The difference between this and complementary and alternative "medicine" (CAM) is starkly shown. Real medicine is tested for efficacy, and abandoned if it doesn't work. When was the last time any CAM treatment was publicly abandoned by its practitioners because they discovered it didn't work?
So, if I get it well, the fact that a certain kind of treatment was never publicly abandoned is hold as an argument AGAINST that treatment. Am I the really only one who thinks that we should try, at least once, to consider things the other way around? That maybe they were never publicly abandoned because nobody ever discovered they didn't work?
Yeah, I'm sure you'll love the article, Tara. It's a good example of scientific goal keeping against the herds of charlatans who threaten to take over control and increasingly find the ear of many people who might not be so totally ignorant as you seem to think they are.
BTW, you still take the avian flu (lol) hoax seriously ?