----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:56 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Kollerstrom & Staudenmaier article
Hi Hilary
In my opinion yes to your question - this is good enough to
say it supports Maria Thun's findings. However it once again confirms the
lack of value of "scientific" trials. This one is a classic - from the one
set of trial data we have a proven argument and "scientific evidence" that
supports both opposing sides depending on how we jig the figures. This is
going on all the time in research - experiments designed and analysed in a
way that supports a pre determined position. In other words they decide what
the answer is that they need and then design the research project
accordingly.
Ok call me a cynic or whatever but anybody that thinks this is not happening
is living in fairy land! I would be interested to know if the original
researcher was a supporter of Maria Thun or not ?
Cheers all
Lloyd Charles
> Allan/Barry,
>
> Thanks so much for posting this link! I was so pleased to be able to read
> this at last.
>
> I would be very interested to know what list members think of this
research.
> Does it stand as a refutation of the Spiess study, a confirmation of
Thun's
> findings, in your opinion?
>
> Hilary
>
