Quote:
Originally Posted by lightworker888
When we talk about unbiased, I question whether any study is every truly unbiased. We can't even get truly unbiased double bind studies as each person has a unique constitution and history and emotional make up, so you can't even really get a "pure" group.
|
I think that's why there's supposed to be a certain process to follow. First there's usually a small clinical study of about 17 or 18 people. If it shows some benefit for the active agent (whatever it may be), then they proceed to do a medium size clinical study. If that also shows some benefit, they go to a large size clinical study. And if that shows some benefit, they usually will go to a much larger study which may include many hundreds of people.
I wouldn't worry about double blind though. I think, if I'm not mistaken, double blind is mostly for testing drugs, vitamins and soforth.
I believe the study they use for diet is called observational and there have been some very good ones. I believe The China Study is one of the few really good ones. Try reading it sometime; there's a whole chapter where the author discusses the science behind the study (how and why it was designed the way it was designed).
The study was government funded so the author was not biased by having products to sell. He wrote the book at the end of his career to let the taxpayers know what they got for their money.
No dumbing down here.
P.S. I have Bruce Lipton's book, "The Biology of Belief". And I have a couple of books by D' Adamo.