Suspect....LOL..came across this by chance but it brought a smile to my
face. You are still handy withe "dummy" and "ignorant" labels for other
people in this newsgroup I see. Interesting coming from a fellow who
makes any number of assertions that are erroneous at the least and
silly at best. This I pointed out last month in response to your
nonsensical posts reguarding D.O.s. You did not grace my observations
with a reply. I can only assume because you were embarressed at being
show glaring inaccuricies in certain posts of yours. Your comments
(even sketchily based in logic and fact as they are, might be more
persuasive if you abandoned the name calling and slurs denigrating the
intelligence of others. As they say "people in glass houses....")




usual suspect wrote:
> Tyrone Biggums wrote:
> >>Read it and weep, gullible dolt.
> >
> > The sample is ridiculous.
>
> Ipse dixit and completely IGNORANT. The sample wasn't 65 people, as you
> stupidly suggest. Keep reading if you haven't killfiled me yet, moron.
>
> > I have 15+ years of research experience.
>
> In what field? And why do you not comprehend the nature of the
> meta-analysis of this study?
>
> > 65 people representing millions all over the world, races, social/economic
> > factors, environment, etc. etc. etc.
>
> Whoa, dumb ass. The study was a meta-analysis of previous studies: "110
> homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were
> analysed."
>
> The *MEDIAN SIZE* was 65 -- but the studies had anywhere from 10 to 1573
> participants. And before you get all carried away in mocking that which
> you clearly didn't comprehend, keep in mind these were studies which
> purportedly showed benefits of homeopathy (i.e., sugar pills). This
> meta-analysis found that "there was weak evidence for a specific effect
> of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of
> conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion
> that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects."
>
> > This "study" is a sad joke
>
> No, it's actually illustrative.
>
> > and proves nothing.
>
> You mean aside from the fact that sugar pills have can have a placebo
> effect (if they have any effect at all)?
>
> > Try again.
>
> YOU try again, dummy. It wasn't a "study of 65 people," it was a
> meta-analysis of 110 homeopathy studies compared to 110 allopathic
> studies with a median size of 65 participants (range of 10-1573). You
> didn't even comprehend that, did you, pussy.
>
> > Oh, and you need to go back to my KF too.
>
> Is ignorance really bliss?