tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post817457691622753388..comments2024-01-11T10:42:04.473+00:00Comments on Hawk/Handsaw: I know I said life was too short...Paul Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-4891711396004719372009-03-15T11:04:00.000+00:002009-03-15T11:04:00.000+00:00Mojo:Yes, clearly not $31.50 of amusement...I alwa...Mojo:<BR/><BR/>Yes, clearly not $31.50 of amusement...I always forget that I only get these things for free because I work for a university.<BR/><BR/>If you want a copy, drop me an e-mail (details <A HREF="http://www.seaes.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/staffprofile.php?id=75" REL="nofollow">here</A>), and I should be able to sort something out.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-2785920278474600212009-03-14T21:30:00.000+00:002009-03-14T21:30:00.000+00:00I don't think it would provide $31.50's worth of a...I don't think it would provide $31.50's worth of amusement...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-47939507221329510182009-03-14T17:06:00.000+00:002009-03-14T17:06:00.000+00:00Mojo:I can't be sure, but I think the Fisher docum...Mojo:<BR/><BR/>I can't be sure, but I think the Fisher document might be <A HREF="http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09.003" REL="nofollow">this one</A>, from the issue of Homeopathy that included the original Rutten and Stolper paper. Naturally, it's almost completely wrong about everything, but it might amuse you for a bit.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-72781630867999029322009-03-14T09:05:00.000+00:002009-03-14T09:05:00.000+00:00According to the Faculty of Homeopathy's document ...According to the Faculty of Homeopathy's document <A HREF="http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/export/sites/faculty_site/media/WE_ANSWER_THE_CRITICS.pdf" REL="nofollow">We Answer The Critics</A>, Peter Fisher "has written a detailed commentary" on The Ludtke/Rutten and Rutten/Stolper papers. They don't give an actual citation, and the link just takes me to a Journal of Clinical Epidemiology login page. I've tried browsing the journal's contents for the last few issues, but I can't find Fisher's commentary there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-11210397989844640702008-11-20T14:11:00.000+00:002008-11-20T14:11:00.000+00:00Excellent work - although if this gets printed, yo...<I>Excellent work - although if this gets printed, you'll have the dubious "honour" of a publication in Homeopathy on your record!</I><BR/><BR/>Well, after the famous <A HREF="http://www.badscience.net/2007/09/528/" REL="nofollow">Memory of Water</A> fiasco, I already have two publications in <I>Homeopathy</I>. <A HREF="http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.10.002" REL="nofollow">This</A> one, and, as third author, <A HREF="http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.10.004" REL="nofollow">this</A> one. (apgaylard has a couple as well). <BR/><BR/>I don't put these on my academic CV when I'm applying for jobs, but I do put them on my <A HREF="http://www.seaes.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/staffprofile.php?id=75" REL="nofollow">Manchester Uni webpage</A>.<BR/><BR/>Thank you all for your comments: I'll be posting what happens to the submission on this blog, but it's likely to be a long time before I hear anything.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-7945883900452167112008-11-20T12:19:00.000+00:002008-11-20T12:19:00.000+00:00Very nice. Do let us know whether they publish it....Very nice. Do let us know whether they publish it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-67145709191214011182008-11-20T10:26:00.000+00:002008-11-20T10:26:00.000+00:00So, put a little more crudely, they're arguing tha...So, put a little more crudely, they're arguing that the Shang <I>et al.</I> paper is flawed because it <B>didn't</B> fiddle the results?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-30021742696790016232008-11-19T23:23:00.000+00:002008-11-19T23:23:00.000+00:00Excellent work - although if this gets printed, yo...Excellent work - although if this gets printed, you'll have the dubious "honour" of a publication in <I>Homeopathy</I> on your record!Neuroskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06647064768789308157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-77349504477169773972008-11-19T15:11:00.000+00:002008-11-19T15:11:00.000+00:00Heh, thanks for spotting the typo. I've gone and s...Heh, thanks for spotting the typo. I've gone and sent the thing now, but I'd be able to fix that at the proof stage, assuming it gets that far. And thanks for the link: I may get around to checking that out.<BR/><BR/>As you say, Shang and colleagues are now being criticised for following the exclusion and inclusion criteria of their study. My favourite bit is when Rutten and Stolper affect to be surprised by the exclusion of a study (the one Dana Ullman liked on polyarthritis), and then go on to point out which of the exclusion criteria it met. Myself, I didn't find it that surprising that the authors failed to abandon the design of their entire study so they could include that trial.<BR/><BR/>And obviously, it was quite wrong of them to include those negative studies on muscle soreness, because then the results would be negative.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-46734322402239676902008-11-19T13:11:00.000+00:002008-11-19T13:11:00.000+00:00Well put. A small typo you may have already notic...Well put. A small typo you may have already noticed, "This could be discovered simply by reading the original paper, and the conclusion <EM>that that</EM> the groups were chosen post-hoc cannot be sustained."<BR/><BR/>Peter Fisher, who co-authored one of the controvertial muscle soreness papers discussed this point in the <A HREF="http://www.naturalhistorymuseum.org.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/homeopathic-medicine/index.html" REL="nofollow">2006 debate</A> with Ben Goldacre at the Natural History Museum. It might be worth checking the excuses.<BR/><BR/>But, as you say, it wasn't Shang <I>et al.</I>'s fault that the homeopathy research community put good quality trials of something they say they never do in the literature. Having set their selection criteria they <I>had</I> to use them. To do otherwise would have been dishonest.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, if you listen to some homeopaths there isn't anything it can't do. It seems that the definition of lacking internal validity is getting a negative result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com