Sure, what would you like to see? EBM has studies for every prescription medication that demonstrate their efficacy and for many treatments as well. These take into account the placebo effect as well. Unfortunately, the same can't be said of homeopathy... well, what I should say is that those studies we do have of homeopathy don't show any beneficial results.Lets see some statistics.
Naw... whisky is merely palliative.I don't agree. I KNOW that whiskey works wonders, even when it's diluted with water.
Huh?Or does it? Does statistically significant equal biologically significant?
http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html
http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/LHSP.HTM
No, it's because normal blood glucose variation is from 70 to 140 depending on when and what you last ate or drank. Therefore a rise from 70 to 110 would be quite normal and healthy. A rise from 180 to 220 or a drop from 70 to 30 would be a problem however.And this is a weird approach to take in clinical trials where intra and inter individual variation is so high as to mask many effects. I've seen scientists talk about a 40 point difference in blood glucose as "negligible" because they cannot comprehend that biology is not statistics. Its also a reflection of their restricted worldview.
Actually, this is common. Particularly if there are good reasons to believe something should have happened. It's really part and parcel of the scientific process and one of the reasons why studies are so detailed and why controls are such an important part of the process. Trends like this are found quite often. If you're not controlling your variables, you have no idea what happened.To give an example: I know a research student who was testing the possible therapeutic effects of a compound in a cancer model. His results showed that although there was a trend, the effects were not statistically significant. Now because this was a smart Chinese boy, he went on to examine why some of the subjects did not show a treatment effect. And found a mutation that makes the subjects unresponsive to the treatment. But this kind of thinking is very rare among scientists.
~Raithere