Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Confounding Factors_ (Score 2) 149

Observational Studies are no where near being true nor scientific. Sure they're part of the scientific process but they aren't themselves scientific at all. Clinical studies are required. You could just as easily say that Eating less sugar, thus having less tooth cavities, may protect against cancer, or how about brushing your teeth more often may reduces the risk of getting cancer. Please, for f**ks sake - stop taking shit out of context and drawing up conclusions. Has everyone forgot about the Nurses' Health Study recommending Estrogen to reduce heart disease? That turned out fantastic didn't it? Some clinical studies were discontinued since those taking Estrogen had an 40% increased risk of heart disease. Yet pills were sold and recommended by doctors based on Observational Studies. Turns out Natural Estrogen is fine and beneficial, particularly in the early stages of menopause. Emphasis on NATURAL Estrogen. Let's also not forget that this Cavity Cancer relationship study is conducted by JAMA. The same journal that published a similarly biased observational study on Estrogen (Heart and Estrogen-Progestin Replacement Study (HERS)) in the 1990s giving buzz to the Estrogen pills that were in 2002, clinically proven, to be completely false.

Slashdot Top Deals

We declare the names of all variables and functions. Yet the Tao has no type specifier.

Working...