|
Bad ScienceYou canБЂ™t just say, БЂHereБЂ™s a trial that shows this treatment works,БЂ™ because there are good trials, or БЂfair testsБЂ™, and there are bad trials. When doctors and scientists say that a study was methodologically flawed and unreliable, itБЂ™s not because theyБЂ™re being mean, or trying to maintain the БЂhegemonyБЂ™, or to keep the backhanders coming from the pharmaceutical industry: itБЂ™s because the study was poorly performed БЂ“ it costs nothing to blind properly БЂ“ and simply wasnБЂ™t a fair test. Randomisation LetБЂ™s take this out of the theoretical, and look at some of the trials which homeopaths quote to support their practice. IБЂ™ve got a bog-standard review of trials for homeopathic arnica by Professor Edward Ernst in front of me, which we can go through for examples. We should be absolutely clear that the inadequacies here are not unique, I do not imply malice, and I am not being mean. What we are doing is simply what medics and academics do when they appraise evidence. So, Hildebrandt et al. (as they say in academia) looked at forty-two women taking homeopathic arnica for delayed-onset muscle soreness, and found it performed better than placebo ...» |
Код для вставки книги в блог HTML
phpBB
текст
|
|