 |
 |
>The spewer of spam is no longer a list member. Thank you for your help, >especially Janet Paterson for notifying the service provider. The only >good that came from this episode is that we are all more aware of what an >alert group we have. Great work, team (have I been watching the Olympics >too much while I'm home with the flu?). Barb We certainly have a lot of people on the ball, who can think for themselves, and recognise this c**p for what it is. I don't think it is 'snake-oil' as such; I interpret snake-oil as a person who knows better, but peddles rubbish for the profit in it. This person appears to me to be suffering from a delusional psychological disorder. For what it is worth, I set out here my own set of rules for deciding whether or not any 'research' is valid or not: 1. The research involves at least 100 trial subjects. Any less is prone to statistical error. 2. The subjects have been proven, by reliable testing by acknowledged experts, to have the disorder under investigation. In the past several 'fantastic' cures were shown to have been made on persons not having the disorder in the first place! 3. There are an equivalent number of 'controls', ie, people who do not have the disorder, and who have been matched to the subjects for such variables as sex, age, environment, etc., etc. This helps to rule out factors which commonly apply to the general population, but it is not infallible. 4. The research is auditable, ie, responsible persons can and do monitor various stages of the research. Even famous and (previously) respectable people have succumbed to the lure of fame, or money, or both. 5. The results are repeatable by others. Many trials fall over at this point, eg, the (in)famous 'cold fusion' experiments. If the results can not be repeated, then research is highly questionable, to say the least. 6. The research reports PLUS all relevant materials and notes, are vetted by a peer-review board. This helps to rule out questionable science, plagiarism, false a priori reasoning, etc. 7. The reports and any subsequent theories are published in an appropriate and respectable journal, so that they may be questioned by experts in the field. Now I know that there are a small number of occasions where, on the one hand, all the rules were followed, and the research was still proven later to be falsely based, and on the other, where some persons have departed from the rules and been successful, but these instances are in the minority. This all takes time, of course, and those of us who are in advanced stages of a disorder can become impatient for a 'cure'. But it establishes a basis for acceptance by medical professionals, and protects the public, to a large degree, from charlatans, quacks, and poor science. Jim [59/13 Sinemet, Eldepryl] ------------------------------------------ Jim Slattery - [log in to unmask] CW PD Web - [log in to unmask] http://www.bec.net.au/~cwpdg/ ------------------------------------------