ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Nandrolone Experiences
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DS3" data-source="post: 176455" data-attributes="member: 18514"><p>Anecdotal evidence can never be used as data in the world of science. Anecdotes can be used to generate hypotheses that can then be tested using the strictures of the scientific method, but not as data points themselves that we can put definitive stock in. And in cases where no scientific evidence, or minimal, exists, doctors can use anecdotal evidence to help guide their decisions. However, in these cases, it is always best to make evidence-based decisions. </p><p></p><p>Yes, I am acutely aware of observation studies and poll data. Observational studies are also conducted under the strictures of the scientific method before conclusions are drawn. Then, all studies are subject to peer review, replicability, and scrutiny of methods used.</p><p></p><p>Laypeople do not have the training (or resources) to conduct studies that are conducted as rigorously and that are reliable, valid, and replicable.</p><p></p><p>As far as the epidemiological research you refer to (research on meat, etc.), these studies are conducted by trained research scientists who are trained in scientific research and statistical analysis. However, inherent limitations of epidemiological research are known (ecological fallacy, research bias, etc.). While ecological data is useful in helping establish correlations between a set of variables, this data is very poor is establishing correlations between that same set of variables at the level of individuals. In all honesty, do you really think that people like Taeian Clark are conducting epidemiological research???</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569326/[/URL]</p><p></p><p>Taeian Clark has not the training nor intelligence to conduct valid and reliable research for us to make informed decisions from. Dr.Thomas O’Connell said it best when he said Taeian Clark is a moron.</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]ZiC7TOolZ4E[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p></p><p>What is different between research conducted by scientists using the scientific method of inquiry to determine correlation or causation between a set of variables and just a normal person using their personal experience for proof of concept with no scientific research (such as ‘using Deca as a base is superior to Test because look at me and my bloodwork). Is that something I really have to explain? Is the difference not clear?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DS3, post: 176455, member: 18514"] Anecdotal evidence can never be used as data in the world of science. Anecdotes can be used to generate hypotheses that can then be tested using the strictures of the scientific method, but not as data points themselves that we can put definitive stock in. And in cases where no scientific evidence, or minimal, exists, doctors can use anecdotal evidence to help guide their decisions. However, in these cases, it is always best to make evidence-based decisions. Yes, I am acutely aware of observation studies and poll data. Observational studies are also conducted under the strictures of the scientific method before conclusions are drawn. Then, all studies are subject to peer review, replicability, and scrutiny of methods used. Laypeople do not have the training (or resources) to conduct studies that are conducted as rigorously and that are reliable, valid, and replicable. As far as the epidemiological research you refer to (research on meat, etc.), these studies are conducted by trained research scientists who are trained in scientific research and statistical analysis. However, inherent limitations of epidemiological research are known (ecological fallacy, research bias, etc.). While ecological data is useful in helping establish correlations between a set of variables, this data is very poor is establishing correlations between that same set of variables at the level of individuals. In all honesty, do you really think that people like Taeian Clark are conducting epidemiological research??? [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569326/[/URL] Taeian Clark has not the training nor intelligence to conduct valid and reliable research for us to make informed decisions from. Dr.Thomas O’Connell said it best when he said Taeian Clark is a moron. [MEDIA=youtube]ZiC7TOolZ4E[/MEDIA] What is different between research conducted by scientists using the scientific method of inquiry to determine correlation or causation between a set of variables and just a normal person using their personal experience for proof of concept with no scientific research (such as ‘using Deca as a base is superior to Test because look at me and my bloodwork). Is that something I really have to explain? Is the difference not clear? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Nandrolone Experiences
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top