[quote]David Barr wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Also why designate an unaltered group as “sham-operated”?
It’s a closer match than a group without surgery. This shows that the trauma of the surgery (anaesthetization cutting stitching etc.) didn’t cause the changes (but I feel as though you already know this).
I know what “sham-operated” means (or at least used to mean), but can’t make heads or tails out of the seemingly inconsistent use of it in this VERY technical article.
They sham operated at first, then removed everything at the end of the study.[/quote]
Thanks Dave. I used to read a lot more of these types of things. I think my brain got rusty. In any case it seems a bit tenuous to base any fear of tomatoes on this study alone from what I could gather though this did seem to be rather well thought out. Then again we’re left with the speculation of how much of this translates from rats to humans even assuming the conclusiveness of the findings.
It seems these types of folks revel in the practice of constructing written thought in such a way so that you almost have to diagram the damn things sentence by sentence unless you’re one of them.