Statin Nation

Off Topic
41

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]

You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about.

42

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]
You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about. [/quote]

If the method is crap, the results are crap. Even if that includes all 20.

43

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]
You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about. [/quote]

If the method is crap, the results are crap. Even if that includes all 20.[/quote]
Of course.

44

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]
You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about. [/quote]

If the method is crap, the results are crap. Even if that includes all 20.[/quote]
Of course. [/quote]

So how does one know which methods are crap in order to draw conclusions?

45

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]
You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about. [/quote]

If the method is crap, the results are crap. Even if that includes all 20.[/quote]
Of course. [/quote]

So how does one know which methods are crap in order to draw conclusions?[/quote]

Those dont normally make the NEJM or other worthy journals.

46

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]
You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about. [/quote]

If the method is crap, the results are crap. Even if that includes all 20.[/quote]
Of course. [/quote]

So how does one know which methods are crap in order to draw conclusions?[/quote]

Those dont normally make the NEJM or other worthy journals.[/quote]

See, that is one example of something that I would actually like to believe in.

But dont.

47

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]
You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about. [/quote]

If the method is crap, the results are crap. Even if that includes all 20.[/quote]
Of course. [/quote]

So how does one know which methods are crap in order to draw conclusions?[/quote]

Those dont normally make the NEJM or other worthy journals.[/quote]

See, that is one example of something that I would actually like to believe in.

But dont. [/quote]

I am not getting back into this conversation. Like talking to guys about the grassy knoll.

I should stop posting or reading.

Carry on

48

So, should I or shouldn’t I be eating my eggs? Assuming I want to “be healthy”, whatever that means.

49

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]
You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about. [/quote]

If the method is crap, the results are crap. Even if that includes all 20.[/quote]
Of course. [/quote]

So how does one know which methods are crap in order to draw conclusions?[/quote]

Those dont normally make the NEJM or other worthy journals.[/quote]

See, that is one example of something that I would actually like to believe in.

But dont. [/quote]

I am not getting back into this conversation. Like talking to guys about the grassy knoll.

I should stop posting or reading.

Carry on[/quote]

I am not arguing that my beliefs have some merit or not.

I was accused of believing what I wanted to believe in.

That is something I would like to believe in, but I dont.

50

350×2361 123 KB

51

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]
You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about. [/quote]

If the method is crap, the results are crap. Even if that includes all 20.[/quote]
Of course. [/quote]

So how does one know which methods are crap in order to draw conclusions?[/quote]

If someone does a thorough systematic review, I’d say that’s a good method. If you just ignore studies that disagree with your thesis and focus on the ones you like, that’s a crappy method that seems very common on the internet.

52

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[/quote]

Did you know that for a long time those animals where thought to be mathematically impossible?

53

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[/quote]

Did you know that for a long time those animals where thought to be mathematically impossible?[/quote]

54

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.

A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there. [/quote]
You seem to be talking about performing the study and analyzing raw data, not reading 20 studies about statins and drawing conclusions, which is what this thread is about. [/quote]

If the method is crap, the results are crap. Even if that includes all 20.[/quote]
Of course. [/quote]

So how does one know which methods are crap in order to draw conclusions?[/quote]

Those dont normally make the NEJM or other worthy journals.[/quote]

See, that is one example of something that I would actually like to believe in.

But dont. [/quote]

I am not getting back into this conversation. Like talking to guys about the grassy knoll.

I should stop posting or reading.

Carry on[/quote]

I am not arguing that my beliefs have some merit or not.

I was accused of believing what I wanted to believe in.

That is something I would like to believe in, but I dont.

[/quote]
You were encouraged to believe what you wanted to believe in. I thought you could say like I did, but it’s more clear if I say “believe what you want to believe”, since I don’t mean “you do believe what you want to believe”. Like “you tell him”.

55

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[/quote]

Did you know that for a long time those animals where thought to be mathematically impossible?[/quote]
[/quote]

Its because they hop so much that they could not possibly eat enough.

BUT, they have some king of biological spring in their legs which helps them buffer the energy from the down motion and redirect it to the upward jump.

56

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[/quote]

Did you know that for a long time those animals where thought to be mathematically impossible?[/quote]
[/quote]

Its because they hop so much that they could not possibly eat enough.

BUT, they have some king of biological spring in their legs which helps them buffer the energy from the down motion and redirect it to the upward jump.

[/quote]

57

[quote]kakno wrote:
I should have taken Consuls advice.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
What makes you think the avg doctor in the US looks at studies?[/quote]
Most doctors have no reason to look at studies. There are organizations that look through more studies than any engineer with a conspiracy book could ever do, with more resources he could ever have and more medical knowledge he could ever have and base their recommendations on that. Reading the recommendations is much more time efficient and it’s easier to get the big picture than reading through hundreds of studies yourself. [/quote]

wow, just wow. Thanks for making my point.

58

[quote]LoRez wrote:
So, should I or shouldn’t I be eating my eggs? Assuming I want to “be healthy”, whatever that means.[/quote]

ask 100 doctors 98 will probably say don’t eat whole eggs, that should speak volumes.

59

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]kakno wrote:
I should have taken Consuls advice.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
What makes you think the avg doctor in the US looks at studies?[/quote]
Most doctors have no reason to look at studies. There are organizations that look through more studies than any engineer with a conspiracy book could ever do, with more resources he could ever have and more medical knowledge he could ever have and base their recommendations on that. Reading the recommendations is much more time efficient and it’s easier to get the big picture than reading through hundreds of studies yourself. [/quote]

wow, just wow. Thanks for making my point.[/quote]
Right back at you

60

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[/quote]

Did you know that for a long time those animals where thought to be mathematically impossible?[/quote]
[/quote]

Its because they hop so much that they could not possibly eat enough.

BUT, they have some king of biological spring in their legs which helps them buffer the energy from the down motion and redirect it to the upward jump.

[/quote]
[/quote]

I am pretty sure that using gerbils for your sexual gratification is supposed to work differently.