Hi Santosh, Given the advances in sciences in today's world, one knows more and more about less and less; OR one knows less and less about more and more. I wished you had read and / or understood the few lines of my post to Fred where my review was mentioned. You totally missed the point of that post. The first part of your response was a REPETITION of my data-filled comment on the "fuzzy math" about the fallibility of science and scientists. Thanks for further references to reinforcing my and perhaps Fred's point. The second part of your post (reviewing my review) was 'off on a tangent' unrelated to the topic of the thread.
>From your response below, given that you are not into clinical science or into >oncology, it would appear that as a know-it-all-scientist, you belong to the >category of scientist who knows less and less about more and more. Nothing >wrong with that. Or may be, you are a god-scientist?:=)) Hope you have a sense of humor. Kind Regards, GL ---------- Santosh wrote: SH: Gilbert, I read the original paper entitled "Evidence-based medicine: its effect on treatment recommendations as illustrated by the changing role of post-mastectomy irradiation to treat breast cancer by S. H. Levitt, D. Aeppli and M. B. Nierengarten in Int.J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 2003, 55(3):645-50. I also read the author S. H. Levitt's response to your non-peer reviewed letter. GL: Of course you did it all in a day (from my post to your response), perhaps without understanding much about what you read. SH; No, you are mistaken. I understood what you wrote in your brief letter, and what the original review article had to say. How much time did it take you to read the original paper? How much time did it take to write your letter.
