Medicine is still wrong Atologyka
Last month I published an article that explains in depth how to, how and why medical Anat wrong when she claimed that animal tests delayed clinic supplies canada the translation rate of biomedical research - basic medical therapies useful in the clinic, while alternatives clinic supplies canada have prospered. clinic supplies canada Based on the research I have found, I explained, demonstrated and well you can bet on basic science, the animal experiments and alternatives therapies have translated using the same frequency. For more information and expands, I strongly recommend you read this post to get full context.
I did not expect that Anat Medicine will change its ways, retract and admit you were wrong. On the contrary. My past experience with vivisection, taught me to expect clinic supplies canada the leading figures in this movement to regurgitate clinic supplies canada the arguments chewed like a cross between a scratchy recording of "Hound Dog" by Elvis King and Super Version - sentimental of "Free Willy." This is what happens when a social movement addicted to pluck the harp feelings with details that might Halokshim recycled. As expected, the excuses come again.
First came talkbacker Andrew Menashe identified, a key figure in the protest movement against animal testing and a founder of the Israeli Association for the Abolition of Vivisection (do not know for sure if this is Andre Menashe). He provided a link to the article meets my complaints Perry allegedly typing clinic supplies canada of Dr. Ray Garrick, well-known American opposes animal testing serves as president of the organization, with the ironic name "Americans for Medical Progress," an organization fighting animal experiments. Past I've read some tub of Garrick. I consider them demagogic pseudo - scientific cheap and nothing more, and I hope maybe to write about something in the future. came second Anat medicine itself, at least on one occasion claimed Garrick "explains why I'm not mistaken."
Garrick course did not write his article as a direct response to my words. I do not think the worse of duty. It was enough if he had discussed the arguments that I raised. He sends his arrows article published by Robin Lovell clinic supplies canada - Budge, clinic supplies canada Head of the Department of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental clinic supplies canada Genetics at the National Center for Medical Research UK. Lovell - Budge ran his article claimed its own version used Anat medicine clinic supplies canada itself, the claim S"mhakr comprehensive monitoring and examined 25,000 vivisection - live in basic research purported benefit human medicine raised only 0.04% of them actually found useful person. "
Medicine you can bet on this claim on the research of John Aionidis, a researcher and I love lover (Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al., 2003). As I explained in detail in a previous article, Aionidis Co. examined the translation from basic research to therapy only 101 studies basic science, not 25 thousand, only a part of 101 of these studies were carried out on animals, and Aionidis Find the translation process is the same for studies conducted on animals and studies alternatives to them - both groups clinic supplies canada was almost clinic supplies canada identical percentage of clinical trials (approximately 26 percent) and nearly the same percentage of clinical trials whose outcome was positive (about 18 percent).
Studies on animals with studies that were carried out in animals. Based on Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al (2003). Data on research methods of the five studies which found that the treatments offered at the clinic is not listed in the table because Shaionidis clinic supplies canada study did not report them.
Lovell - Budge pointed article about all the failures mentioned above. What did Ray Garrick? Nothing. clinic supplies canada I'm serious. Throughout his article Garrick did not refer these points of Lovell - Budge. Not only did he ignore them, he even continues to use a number like 0.004% is true. There is only one significant difference between him and Anat medicine, and is not meant to make her smile. Garrick explains Shaionidis Co. not only examined studies on animals, but basic science research in general. That is, the final conclusion of Garrick's argument necessarily different medicine. That is, even by Garrick wrong medicine, and the question before us now is how. Maybe in the dreams could be argued that it is not wrong at all and be right.
So how wrong Anat medicine? Completely. Garrick not saving it at all that is wrong himself. To understand this, have a look at what his reference to his claims. Garrick had been counting on one paragraph that appears in an editorial published along with the article's Aionidis Co. (Crowley Jr., 2003):
Article [Aioidis Co.] in this release of the letter - the journal deals with the question discussed much, but gained clinic supplies canada little quantifiable: How often basic research findings are translated into clinical tool. The authors searched the algorithms of all articles published in six leading journals [...] between 1979 and 1983. Than 25,000 articles [which sought Aionidis Co.], 500 (2%) contained any claim [for] potential for [clinical] future humans, about 100 (0.4%) had clinical and according to researchers only one ( 0.004%) led to the development of a group of drugs clinically useful [...] in 3 - years after publication findings of basic science.
First, this passage contains an error will be obvious to all who read well the study of Aionidis Co. or the way I described it. This editorial articles uploaded to your -100 paged Aionidis Co. was a clinical trial. This is incorrect. clinic supplies canada Research Aionidis Co. was based on a sample of 101 basic science research only about one-third of them published any clinical study. Sources of error should contain a warning. It should stay away from them and avoid using them or at least reluctant to use them. Such standards and Ray Garrick are like oil and water.
Second, the percentages shown in parentheses are clearly the source clinic supplies canada for the claim that "studies clinic supplies canada avail 0.004 per person", claimed its own version increased Medicine. The problem is that the editorial did not really saying that. The percentages in parentheses are the percentage of the 25 thousand articles which Aionidis Co. took the 101 sample studies they examined. That is, those not 0.004 percent of the 101 studies examined Aionidis Co.. Therefore, the -0.004% that is not helping at all opponents of animal experimentation. Guided by an absolute ideological blindness, pseudo - scientists frequently do spins vague statement
Last month I published an article that explains in depth how to, how and why medical Anat wrong when she claimed that animal tests delayed clinic supplies canada the translation rate of biomedical research - basic medical therapies useful in the clinic, while alternatives clinic supplies canada have prospered. clinic supplies canada Based on the research I have found, I explained, demonstrated and well you can bet on basic science, the animal experiments and alternatives therapies have translated using the same frequency. For more information and expands, I strongly recommend you read this post to get full context.
I did not expect that Anat Medicine will change its ways, retract and admit you were wrong. On the contrary. My past experience with vivisection, taught me to expect clinic supplies canada the leading figures in this movement to regurgitate clinic supplies canada the arguments chewed like a cross between a scratchy recording of "Hound Dog" by Elvis King and Super Version - sentimental of "Free Willy." This is what happens when a social movement addicted to pluck the harp feelings with details that might Halokshim recycled. As expected, the excuses come again.
First came talkbacker Andrew Menashe identified, a key figure in the protest movement against animal testing and a founder of the Israeli Association for the Abolition of Vivisection (do not know for sure if this is Andre Menashe). He provided a link to the article meets my complaints Perry allegedly typing clinic supplies canada of Dr. Ray Garrick, well-known American opposes animal testing serves as president of the organization, with the ironic name "Americans for Medical Progress," an organization fighting animal experiments. Past I've read some tub of Garrick. I consider them demagogic pseudo - scientific cheap and nothing more, and I hope maybe to write about something in the future. came second Anat medicine itself, at least on one occasion claimed Garrick "explains why I'm not mistaken."
Garrick course did not write his article as a direct response to my words. I do not think the worse of duty. It was enough if he had discussed the arguments that I raised. He sends his arrows article published by Robin Lovell clinic supplies canada - Budge, clinic supplies canada Head of the Department of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental clinic supplies canada Genetics at the National Center for Medical Research UK. Lovell - Budge ran his article claimed its own version used Anat medicine clinic supplies canada itself, the claim S"mhakr comprehensive monitoring and examined 25,000 vivisection - live in basic research purported benefit human medicine raised only 0.04% of them actually found useful person. "
Medicine you can bet on this claim on the research of John Aionidis, a researcher and I love lover (Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al., 2003). As I explained in detail in a previous article, Aionidis Co. examined the translation from basic research to therapy only 101 studies basic science, not 25 thousand, only a part of 101 of these studies were carried out on animals, and Aionidis Find the translation process is the same for studies conducted on animals and studies alternatives to them - both groups clinic supplies canada was almost clinic supplies canada identical percentage of clinical trials (approximately 26 percent) and nearly the same percentage of clinical trials whose outcome was positive (about 18 percent).
Studies on animals with studies that were carried out in animals. Based on Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al (2003). Data on research methods of the five studies which found that the treatments offered at the clinic is not listed in the table because Shaionidis clinic supplies canada study did not report them.
Lovell - Budge pointed article about all the failures mentioned above. What did Ray Garrick? Nothing. clinic supplies canada I'm serious. Throughout his article Garrick did not refer these points of Lovell - Budge. Not only did he ignore them, he even continues to use a number like 0.004% is true. There is only one significant difference between him and Anat medicine, and is not meant to make her smile. Garrick explains Shaionidis Co. not only examined studies on animals, but basic science research in general. That is, the final conclusion of Garrick's argument necessarily different medicine. That is, even by Garrick wrong medicine, and the question before us now is how. Maybe in the dreams could be argued that it is not wrong at all and be right.
So how wrong Anat medicine? Completely. Garrick not saving it at all that is wrong himself. To understand this, have a look at what his reference to his claims. Garrick had been counting on one paragraph that appears in an editorial published along with the article's Aionidis Co. (Crowley Jr., 2003):
Article [Aioidis Co.] in this release of the letter - the journal deals with the question discussed much, but gained clinic supplies canada little quantifiable: How often basic research findings are translated into clinical tool. The authors searched the algorithms of all articles published in six leading journals [...] between 1979 and 1983. Than 25,000 articles [which sought Aionidis Co.], 500 (2%) contained any claim [for] potential for [clinical] future humans, about 100 (0.4%) had clinical and according to researchers only one ( 0.004%) led to the development of a group of drugs clinically useful [...] in 3 - years after publication findings of basic science.
First, this passage contains an error will be obvious to all who read well the study of Aionidis Co. or the way I described it. This editorial articles uploaded to your -100 paged Aionidis Co. was a clinical trial. This is incorrect. clinic supplies canada Research Aionidis Co. was based on a sample of 101 basic science research only about one-third of them published any clinical study. Sources of error should contain a warning. It should stay away from them and avoid using them or at least reluctant to use them. Such standards and Ray Garrick are like oil and water.
Second, the percentages shown in parentheses are clearly the source clinic supplies canada for the claim that "studies clinic supplies canada avail 0.004 per person", claimed its own version increased Medicine. The problem is that the editorial did not really saying that. The percentages in parentheses are the percentage of the 25 thousand articles which Aionidis Co. took the 101 sample studies they examined. That is, those not 0.004 percent of the 101 studies examined Aionidis Co.. Therefore, the -0.004% that is not helping at all opponents of animal experimentation. Guided by an absolute ideological blindness, pseudo - scientists frequently do spins vague statement
No comments:
Post a Comment