On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:24:58 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:19:50 +0100, Praeclarissimus Camuloduni
wrote:


studied the Logic of science at Middlesex University and I know
comprehensively (what I remember of it) the malleable nature of
statistics - there was no 'new age' back in 1984

Yes there was.

Not in Trent Park college there wasn't- 'new wave' maybe!

I googled and found no scientific evidence, only adverts in one form
or another. They sponsored Formula 1 in 1989, but so did Parmasalat.

So did I and didn't find evidence either way. As I said you are the
only negative I've found and somebody that accuses me of "typical New
Age gullibility" because I pointed out the malleability of statistics
and the possibilities of their abuse in the modern Pharmaceutical
industry doesn't strike me as offering an unbiased view. Only unbiased
view would be scientific

Wrong Martin. However I agree with what he posted.

Anyways how's yer cabbages?

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:44:23 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Praeclarissimus Camuloduni wrote:
I have friends who are in western

biochemical research and i think the crux of the matter was summed up
by one a drug company statistician who said " you tell me what you
want to prove and I'll prove it". If you go into the logics of
statistics you will find very little solid ground.

That is the typical New Age gullibility. If you want to believe in it
then fine. But if you want taxpayers' money diverted to utterly bogus
corporate con-merchants that is another matter.

That sounds like a politicians reply. Classic Doublespeak. You
diverted the statement away from the drug companies and on to some
ethereal conglomerate called 'new age' .

I am not great fan of the drug companies either. But con-merchants like
the special magical artifical light company are beyond the pale. They
prey on the most vulnerable and desparate victims of chronic illness.

Incidentally I tried a patent search on their claimed to be patented
invention and guess what - there isn't anything on file.

"taxpayers money being diverted to bogus corporate con-merchants" Are
you telling me the drug companies are not tweaking statistics
massively in their favour. what about the perks Doctors are getting
for pushing certain Drugs?

I am not in favour of that either.

But the statistical evidence for drugs efficacy has to be sufficient to
convince expert panels in order to get a licence. The same is not true
for alternative product based scams.

studied the Logic of science at Middlesex University and I know
comprehensively (what I remember of it) the malleable nature of
statistics

Statistics are not particularly malleable. However, presentations of
statistical data can be deliberately obscured depending on who is paying
the wage cheque. It is still just about possible for a tobacco apologist
to stand in court on oath and say "smoking does not cause cancer" using
a particularly crafted legalistic phrase without committing purgery.

- there was no 'new age' back in 1984 so it wasn't part of
their subplot.

I think you have selective memory there. Pet rocks and crystal healing
came in with the Dungeons & Dragons craze which predates even 1984.

I am not promoting 'New Age' far from it. just being
truly scientific and recognising there are limits and abuse in all
fields of medical care. 20 years ago the medical Profession told me I
had 5 years to live ....of course that would have been a statistical
assessment.

They can always be wrong. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers.

Regards,
Martin Brown


Talked to a friend of mine who is a Leukemia specialist he directed me
he

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...arch&DB=pubmed

If you put Bioptron in the search engine you will find a lot of
research papers. All showing some effect.