Hi Santosh, Thanks for reviewing and commenting on the contents on my review / commentary without reading the original paper. That is very intellectual and scientific - aint it? With all due respects, your review of my review is to "catch the bull by the tail." Of course you did it all in a day (from my post to your response), perhaps without understanding much about what you read.
Please get your review aaccepted and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Is not that the test of credibility? I concur with your point about science posted below. I really do not want to repeat the obvious. The point of my post, just in case you missed it, was - I do know a little about science.:=)) I am sure you know that. This is my last post on this thread. Kind Regards, GL --------------Santosh wrote: One of the virtues of science is the process of critical peer review. Peer reviewers offer critiques of original articles, and accept and reject them base don their scientific worth. Papers that are published can also be criticized by other scientists as well as non-scientists in the editorial correspondence section of any journal. But more importantly, other scientists can try to reproduce the published findings. If the findings cannot be reproduced, they lose their credibility. It is this normal process that leads to technological progress and intellectual advancement,and at periodic intervals, monumental intellectual upheavals. Gilbert's letter begins as follows:"To the Editor:We read the role of evidence-based medicine in radiation therapy with interest [1]. All are in favor of evidence-based medicine. All are against fuzzy-math. That's easy! But, when we analyze the data, do we really know the difference? And do authors who report the results make the effort to outline the distinction? "
