Lancet study validity in doubt - Page 5

RightinNYC · 01-20-08, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Because the Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA (authors L Roberts PhD, G Burnham MD) and the Department of Community Medicine, College of Medicine, Al-Mustansiriya University, Baghdad, Iraq are medical institutions, not political ones. They are experts in their field, not simply political pollsters.

And which one of those authored this study?

Billo_Really · 01-21-08, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

And which one of those authored this study?

Define "authored".

RightinNYC · 01-21-08, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Define "authored".

Which one of those was responsible for the planning of the study?

Which one of those actually conducted the study?

Which one of those will vouch for the accuracy of the results?

Billo_Really · 01-21-08, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

Which one of those was responsible for the planning of the study?

Which one of those actually conducted the study?

Which one of those will vouch for the accuracy of the results?

I believe they all had a hand in "authoring" the report. Who did what and when, I do not know. Why does it matter?

RightinNYC · 01-21-08, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

I believe they all had a hand in "authoring" the report. Who did what and when, I do not know. Why does it matter?

When you're appealing to authority, it generally helps if the authority supports your claim.

Billo_Really · 01-21-08, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

When you're appealing to authority, it generally helps if the authority supports your claim.

And what claim is that?

RightinNYC · 01-21-08, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

And what claim is that?

That the study's not been thoroughly discredited as a load of ****?

Tashah · 01-21-08, 01:27 PM

This sorta reminds me of the 'intensive studies' done in the 70's and 80's by highly qualified doctors and chemists on cigarette smoke. These reports were all fuzzy and warm and concluded that cigarette smoke was no detriment whatsoever to a smoker's health.

What they neglected to reveal was that all these studies were devised and bankrolled by the major US tobacco companies. These studies all concluded precisely what their deep-pocket benefactor's wanted them to conclude.

The deep-pocket-cold-cash of George Soros behind the Lancet study is likewise deeply disturbing.

Hundebolg · 01-21-08, 02:54 PM

Quote:

NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute.

NJ is not a scientific journal, while the lancet is perhaps the most reputed medical journal worldwide. That alone suffices to disqualify the authors. Also, they haggle about "possible political agenda" of an article that has been screened by Lancet's editorial board, all top scientists .. that's a very amateurish and unscientific thing to do. NJ is not a scientific news source, and seems to have no authority in medical statistics.

Hundebolg · 01-21-08, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

The Lancet study results always seemed... skewered to me. Like trying to force a foot into an ill-fitting shoe. I hope to hear more on this development.

That's not because the shoe is too small but because your foot is too large.