|
|
|
| Authored by: mpellatt on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
Isn't the point of "double-blind" medical trials to avoid any
bias on the part of those involved in them ??
Which is, of course, why I have very little faith in
"metastudies". Hmmmmmm.... Wanders off wondering if a double-
blind metastudy could be devised.......
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 05:01 AM EST |
:-)
I did a bit of study on cholesterol ...
First of all, all cholesterol was bad. Then they discovered the difference
between low- and high-density cholesterol.
Plus humans are one of the very few mammals that can synthesise their own
cholesterol, so low or high cholesterol is imho pretty meaningless *in* *itself*
anyway - it's what it signifies that matters.
Basically, cholesterol is the truck that transports lipids (fats) from the
digestive system to the cells. Too much cholesterol implies too much fat. And
the greater the amount of HDL, the greater the number of "empty"
trucks, so that means the system is working as it should. Obviously too many
empty trucks still isn't a good sign :-)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: yacc on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 12:55 PM EST |
That's why the US FDA does require that medical acceptance
studies are published when they start, so the sponsor cannot
select the results by killing studies that show the "wrong
result".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
