Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Type 2 Diabetes
The Guardian
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oldvatr" data-source="post: 1961536" data-attributes="member: 196898"><p>No. You as a scientist should know that proving a negative to leave a (by default) positive is never a valid way of proving things. Certainly one must eliminate confounders and extraneous noise, but that is only partially successful and not a robust method at all. I am surprised you find such cast iron proof in studies that use hearsay . word of mouth. memory and minimal sampling during the study with uncontrolled inputs as being your Gold Standard for science trials. The report in the OP shows very weak association if that, and cannot give the quantitative result being claimed, since it is a meta study of other meta studies, I am not saying that fibre is not important, but the OP report is rubbish IMHO, and I have studied a great many trials reports in my time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldvatr, post: 1961536, member: 196898"] No. You as a scientist should know that proving a negative to leave a (by default) positive is never a valid way of proving things. Certainly one must eliminate confounders and extraneous noise, but that is only partially successful and not a robust method at all. I am surprised you find such cast iron proof in studies that use hearsay . word of mouth. memory and minimal sampling during the study with uncontrolled inputs as being your Gold Standard for science trials. The report in the OP shows very weak association if that, and cannot give the quantitative result being claimed, since it is a meta study of other meta studies, I am not saying that fibre is not important, but the OP report is rubbish IMHO, and I have studied a great many trials reports in my time. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Type 2 Diabetes
The Guardian
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…