graham wrote:
> On 19/10/2015 12:59 PM, Questa wrote:
>> graham wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2015 4:18 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 4:38:27 PM UTC-4, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 18/10/2015 12:52 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-10-18 1:43 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's up to those who believe in it to prove its efficacy.
>>>>>>> Preferably
>>>>>>> with a controlled double-blind study conducted on a randomly
>>>>>>> selected,
>>>>>>> statistically-significant-sized sample.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of randomly selected samples.... I have to question the
>>>>>> validity of the polls whose results are being pulled out all the
>>>>>> time. I
>>>>>> have no faith in them. They are only polling the people they call,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> means they are only polling the people who were at home, who answered
>>>>>> the phone and gave their time to answer the questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Poll methodology
>>>>>
>>>>> A national dual - frame (land and cell) random telephone survey is
>>>>> conducted
>>>>> nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign using live agents.
>>>>> Each
>>>>> evening a *NEW GROUP* of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. An
>>>>> oversample of
>>>>> 800 interviews was conducted on Friday and Saturday.
>>>>>
>>>>> The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample
>>>>> composed
>>>>> of 2,000 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of
>>>>> interviewing is
>>>>> added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of
>>>>> 1,825
>>>>> decided voters is ±2.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Larger sample*
>>>>>
>>>>> Today's three-day rolling average is based on 2,000 interviews
>>>>> (800 interviews Saturday, 800 interviews Friday and 400 interviews
>>>>> Thursday).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. That was wonderful.
>>>>
>>>> Now if only the believers could show me the results of a proper test
>>>> of feng shui published in, for example, the Journal of Applied Physics.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>> They can't! Results are mentioned in quackmags as "Studies show
>>> that...." and any reference is always to another quackmag. And those
>>> quackmags rely on anecdotal information only.
>>
>> That's a damnable LIE!
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-evidence.html
>>
>>
> So you believe the crap published in what is effectively a supermarket
> tabloid.


So you deny it all without a single credible rebuttal or critique of the
studies cited?

Un-amazing indeed.

That whole 'shoot the messenger' thing is just so old....