I especially like this line:
"Just like one can not use Newtonian physics to evaluate quantum physics."
Bohr has a lot to answer for, then.
Linda
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
I especially like this line:
"Just like one can not use Newtonian physics to evaluate quantum physics."
Bohr has a lot to answer for, then.
Linda
Ah yes. The LRE vaccine. Recommended schedule - primary series at entrance into grade school with boosters upon entrance into secondary and post-secondary institutions, and at 10 year intervals thereafter. Currently recommended only for high-risk populations which includes: current or future politicians, alt-med practitioners, Hollywood starlets, and $ci3nt0l0gists - likelihood of future membership in a high-risk group to be determined after consultation with the parents.
JJM strikes me as too cheap to have sprung for a vaccine that is currently not covered by the public health service. And I happen to know that his mother wears army boots.
Are you sure about that?
Linda
Why the personal attack? Can't you be specific about any mistakes I make?
So, you narrowed your claim to three reviews, to which I have no full-text access; therefore, I cannot evaluate them.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Er, Robinson, you were going to present your scientific evidence that "pet owners [always or nearly always] know when something works on their pet". You know, not that cheap worthless anecdotal stuff, your actual science.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Come on, Robinson!
You stated that pet owners know when something works for their pet.
I challenged this, giving specific examples of situations where pet owners were entirely wrong about whether something was "working" for their pet.
You rejected these examples, saying that anecdotes meant nothing, and where were my scientific studies. Well, I produced one, but requested that you provide the scientific studies you were relying on for your original statement.
Deafening silence.
You also changed your ground to claim that pet owners can tell when their pets clinical signs have improved. I challenged this one as well, including a published reference.
As you reject anecdote as worthless (even, apparently, anecdotes which clearly refute a general/universal statement), then obviously you must have scientific studies which show that pet owners know when "something works", and they also know, reliably, when their pets' clinical signs have improved. Or you would not have made these statements.
I'm still waiting!
(Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find several articles available urging vets to pay more attention to what the pet owners tell them. This is because, given that pet owners are so damn unreliable so much of the time, many vets get into the habit of discounting just about every word the owner tells them. Clearly this is not good - owners sometimes have valuable insights, and losing these by too cynical an attitude is bad medicine. But actually, the fact that this problem exists, simply underlines my original point.)
Rolfe.
You stated that pet owners know when something works for their pet.
I challenged this, giving specific examples of situations where pet owners were entirely wrong about whether something was "working" for their pet.
You rejected these examples, saying that anecdotes meant nothing, and where were my scientific studies. Well, I produced one, but requested that you provide the scientific studies you were relying on for your original statement.
Deafening silence.
You also changed your ground to claim that pet owners can tell when their pets clinical signs have improved. I challenged this one as well, including a published reference.
As you reject anecdote as worthless (even, apparently, anecdotes which clearly refute a general/universal statement), then obviously you must have scientific studies which show that pet owners know when "something works", and they also know, reliably, when their pets' clinical signs have improved. Or you would not have made these statements.
I'm still waiting!
(Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find several articles available urging vets to pay more attention to what the pet owners tell them. This is because, given that pet owners are so damn unreliable so much of the time, many vets get into the habit of discounting just about every word the owner tells them. Clearly this is not good - owners sometimes have valuable insights, and losing these by too cynical an attitude is bad medicine. But actually, the fact that this problem exists, simply underlines my original point.)
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Robinson?
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
This article at S-B M deserves to be seen. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=258
I am reduced to an emoticon
I am reduced to an emoticon
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 11,103
Any physician who admits to needing help from God to perform competently is not coming anywhere near me.
On the other hand, I suppose knowing the beliefs of the patient could be handy if something does go wrong:
"Before we begin I'd like to gauge how bad I should feel if I make a mistake and you die. Do you believe in an afterlife?"
On the other hand, I suppose knowing the beliefs of the patient could be handy if something does go wrong:
"Before we begin I'd like to gauge how bad I should feel if I make a mistake and you die. Do you believe in an afterlife?"