@JayJuanGee
Probably you haven't access to my MP... I am sorry for that
I don't know what an MP is. Maybe you should explain.
The problem is very easy to explain... anyone want to speak about this argument like an expert when has serious issue just to understand WHAT IS A PREPRINT or a weak clinical trial, or a treatment not tested.
Is there some piece of information that I was supposed to have read and understood?
You want to drag me into one of your "scientific" claims? I don't recall making any kind of scientific claim, myself, so I am not sure what burden I have to read a certain document or to understand how one document or study or treatment is different from another.
Sure it is possible that all of you claims, to the extent that you were making some claims beyond just exuding authority were actually valid.. perhaps? Perhaps?
For what I have seen
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg54133342#msg54133342People that have knowledge about it are not saying that these are bullshit...
but it's ok I don't need that you understand what I am saying since I am "pompous"
(but it is much more "pompous" and arrogant some one without any knowledge who attacks a person on a subject he does not know)
Too bad that you are feeling attacked. There are quite a few people who participate in this thread who do not tout their various credentials, but are able to share various kinds of information, too... scientific and otherwise... go figure.
We can also have various disagreements and get into the substance without one person proclaiming that they have more expertise than others. Whether true or not, sometimes discussions here do tend to devolve in that direction, which is hardly helpful, in most cases.
I have just tried to explain how these clinical trials should be interpreted. This is not my opinion, it's called SCIENCE.
If you were explaining, supporting or debunking some studies, trials, results, etc, then that is likely to be helpful and might either support claims that you are making or debunk claims that other members are making.
If you are saying that there is only one way to read the result because of science and because you are a purported expert, then that would NOT likely be very helpful to people in this thread or even scientific of you.. and might even cause some resistance or unnecessary confusion or distractions.
For example, if a study is conducted for a specific application, but then that study is used in order to support another application, then yeah a lot of us will understand why there might be weaknesses in that, but then it would not necessarily mean that the other (unstudied) application might not end up having some potential validity.
You are wrong if you tried to discredit what I have explained here since we are not talking about magic pills or about snake oil!
I personally have not even gotten into much if any of the substance of the purported claims that you are making or debunking. If you have claims then you need to support them.
If you believe that I am trying to discredit you merely because I am suggesting that you are employing appeal to authority fallacies, then maybe you need to present your topic from another angle. I have no hostility to you, at least not yet.
I come in peace... hahahahaha but I am not going to address you as "uncle bunkle
(or bitbollo)"
That above quote is not from me, so I am NOT sure what you are talking about or the various links in which you have already presented various arguments in this thread.
I was getting the impression that you were proclaiming to be a pharmacist in order to attempt to bring validity to claims that you were making or the debunking of the claims of others.
Regarding attempting to defend the medical and/or pharmaceutical field in legal ways, now that would likely take us way further afield than we already seem to be drifting, so I can agree with you that such further devolution would likely NOT be necessary.
Poll
