User talk:Sciencewatcher/Archive 4
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Peer review aint what it used to be
Or has it always been like this? I'm not old enough to know.
"Placebo controlled" trials that don't actually compare the placebo group to the treatment group.
"Double blind" trials where the practitioner knows which treatment he is giving the patient.
Rants with dubious conclusions based on dodgy references masquerading as reviews and published by the BMJ.
And my all-time favourite, a magnetic therapy trial where the results clearly show significant unblinding, but they still conclude that "Self reported unblinding to treatment group did not substantially affect the results". And this is a study by Edzard Ernst, who is being paid by the UK government (AFAIK) to objectively test alternative therapies. Oh, and this is also in the BMJ, which is supposedly one of the most respected medical journals in the world. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Post your POV here!
If you want to see my POV on some of the articles I edit, go here. Feel free to post your own opinions about these subjects (or any others). Comments are never censored or deleted based on content (only if you spam or write something libellous, hateful or otherwise illegal). --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
MSG FASEB report
CFS reply
At 8 years old, in a burgeoning field, it just seems...old. I don't really have much objection to it being there, I just think we should have the best AND most recent sources. I don't really have any objections beyond that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Appropriate MSG discussion
Please refrain from personal attacks and inappropriate language being used in the MSG discussion. Thank you.
Anonymous081222 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:Spade --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, but a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily. One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks."
I failed to see "politeness and tact", and instead saw "name-calling" and "attacks". Again, please refrain from such inappropriate discussion. Anonymous081222 (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)