Suppose that one group would do an exact replication, following the Lombardi study to the letter, and found nothing (0/0). What would that then prove in the eyes of the loony forums?
Nothing.
It would in fact be the easiest study to ignore. You would then have two studies with the exact same methodology, with different findings. Which finding would you then trust? Of course, the 'Lombardi' scientists: they have been doing this for years and know how to do their own methodology, while it would be a completely 'new' methodology for these other 'replication scientists' to master.
I guess a negative 'true replication study' would only prove that these other people must have done something wrong in trying to replicate the Lombardi methodology.
As an aside, if it were some vast conspiracy as quite a lot of people on the loony forums now seem to 'know', why wouldn't all these conspirators just act like they did an exact replication? I mean, just report that you've done exactly the same as Mikovits and found nothing instead of all these 'unreplication studies'? Why 'bury' this finding with incorrect, unscientific and unprecedented methodology that is really to easy to spot, even by mere patients?
Posted by: RRM | May 27, 2011 1:23 PM
Pages
▼
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are most welcome! But please:
- No SPAM whatsoever, no supplements, no pharmaceuticals, no herbs or any other advertisements
- Absolutely no quack-doctors pushing their quack-BS websites (and if you are a quack, I will call you out)
- Be critical if you want to, but try to be coherent
Comments are moderated, because I am tired of Gerwyn-V99-The-Idiot and his moronic sockpuppets, and tired of the story of the two dogs, but I will try to publish everything else.
If you are not Gerwyn (and want to tell me something other than the story of the two dogs), then relax and write something! :-)