At least you're not doing an exam on Melbourne Cup day. I'm totally ****** for it as well, which is even better.
I laugh every time I see “At least you’re not… in The Dog’s Breakfast”.
On-topic: … someone who doesn’t know what an ellipsis is.
At least you're not doing an exam on Melbourne Cup day. I'm totally ****** for it as well, which is even better.
Yeah that sux. I missed three Melbourne cups in a row for the same reason back in 'my day.'
Maryanne Demasi, from catalyst. I think she is a terrific reporter/journalist and has run away with a fake lead on this cholesterol report. There is a serious chance that now she may never be taken seriously again.
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Studying vaginal discharges and abnormalities for your exam on Saturday morning.
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
Studying vaginal discharges and abnormalities for your exam on Saturday morning.
Hey, if it doesn't cost you dinner and a movie, who's complaining?
Studying vaginal discharges and abnormalities for your exam on Saturday morning.
Hey, if it doesn't cost you dinner and a movie, who's complaining?
Smooth.
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
She said she'd done hundreds of hours of research and interviews.
I reckon that's a bit better than a quick look online.
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
She said she'd done hundreds of hours of research and interviews.
I reckon that's a bit better than a quick look online.
THere are plenty of people who think they can debunk commonly accepted wisdom....and it's not always because accepted wisdom is accepted because there's a quid in it for the pharmaceutical companies.
There's a lawyer who's decided he knows everything there is to know about dietetics (David Gillespie), totally contrary to all the medically-based dietetics people. With him being a lawyer, I'm inclined to think he's a lying piece of crap.
There are plenty of people around who'll ignore results that adversely affect their findings etc.
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
Oooooo i heard my old man go on about this report......he was very upset...he said something along the lines of:
"it's like saying eating macdonalds is good for you and your heart because maccas sales have increased since 1950 but people dying from heart disease has decreased. People can use whatever statistics they like to suit their arguements"
He then ranted for a while longer until he realised no one was listening to him, so he told everyone that if they want to believe this bullsh*t he will stop being their doctor....they all said no, don't stop..
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
Oooooo i heard my old man go on about this report......he was very upset...he said something along the lines of:
"it's like saying eating macdonalds is good for you and your heart because maccas sales have increased since 1950 but people dying from heart disease has decreased. People can use whatever statistics they like to suit their arguements"
He then ranted for a while longer until he realised no one was listening to him, so he told everyone that if they want to believe this bullsh*t he will stop being their doctor....they all said no, don't stop..
Has he made some quality comments on chiros too?
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
Oooooo i heard my old man go on about this report......he was very upset...he said something along the lines of:
"it's like saying eating macdonalds is good for you and your heart because maccas sales have increased since 1950 but people dying from heart disease has decreased. People can use whatever statistics they like to suit their arguements"
He then ranted for a while longer until he realised no one was listening to him, so he told everyone that if they want to believe this bullsh*t he will stop being their doctor....they all said no, don't stop..
Has he made some quality comments on chiros too?
on what?
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
Oooooo i heard my old man go on about this report......he was very upset...he said something along the lines of:
"it's like saying eating macdonalds is good for you and your heart because maccas sales have increased since 1950 but people dying from heart disease has decreased. People can use whatever statistics they like to suit their arguements"
He then ranted for a while longer until he realised no one was listening to him, so he told everyone that if they want to believe this bullsh*t he will stop being their doctor....they all said no, don't stop..
Has he made some quality comments on chiros too?
on what?
From my experience studying medicine and having a whole heap of chiropractors/chiropractor student mates, there's nothing those parties like more than to sling ■■■■ at eachother. I'd have thought any doctor who'd get that animated about the statins debacle would love a good rant about chiros.
From my experience studying medicine and having a whole heap of chiropractors/chiropractor student mates, there's nothing those parties like more than to sling **** at eachother. I'd have thought any doctor who'd get that animated about the statins debacle would love a good rant about chiros.on what?Has he made some quality comments on chiros too?Oooooo i heard my old man go on about this report......he was very upset...he said something along the lines of:Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
"it's like saying eating macdonalds is good for you and your heart because maccas sales have increased since 1950 but people dying from heart disease has decreased. People can use whatever statistics they like to suit their arguements"
He then ranted for a while longer until he realised no one was listening to him, so he told everyone that if they want to believe this bullsh*t he will stop being their doctor....they all said no, don't stop..
I had an anatomy lecturer who despised chiros, however got one in to take a cranial nerves lecture. If you know the history of chiropractic treatment, I think you will find the irony of that quite funny.
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
She said she'd done hundreds of hours of research and interviews.
I reckon that's a bit better than a quick look online.
THere are plenty of people who think they can debunk commonly accepted wisdom....and it's not always because accepted wisdom is accepted because there's a quid in it for the pharmaceutical companies.
There's a lawyer who's decided he knows everything there is to know about dietetics (David Gillespie), totally contrary to all the medically-based dietetics people. With him being a lawyer, I'm inclined to think he's a lying piece of crap.
There are plenty of people around who'll ignore results that adversely affect their findings etc.
He is a lying piece of ■■■■, but a convinving one as he offers a quick solution and makes it not the individuals fault. Also, if you say anything against him he just goes on about the Dietitians Association teaches dietitians to promote processed foods because they have corporate partners.
And on the studies, it's actually really really difficult to get a study published that shows a negative result or no result.
And lastly on the statins this is the best thing I've read on the topic http://theconversation.com/viewing-catalysts-cholesterol-programs-through-the-sceptometer-19817 . Also I don't know how it would work but it's just interesting that all the anti statin stuff comes out the year the biggest selling medication in the world (lipitor aka atorvastatin) comes out of patent.
- megz
Are you saying that on the basis that it was reckless in that it may scare some people off a valid treatment (for them), or that you think she was conned?
Especially given the other news items this week on the rate of unpublished or irreproducible studies.
Bit of both, she should know better but somebody must of convinced her that there was merit in what she was reporting.
I had a quick look online and read some stuff by Uffe Ranskov (he has several published papers on how cholesterol isn't bad for you, statins are just a waste etc;) and all his results are dependant on clinical trials, ignoring experimental data and epidemiological data. I have a feeling she may of just fallen down the same path.
Oooooo i heard my old man go on about this report......he was very upset...he said something along the lines of:
"it's like saying eating macdonalds is good for you and your heart because maccas sales have increased since 1950 but people dying from heart disease has decreased. People can use whatever statistics they like to suit their arguements"
He then ranted for a while longer until he realised no one was listening to him, so he told everyone that if they want to believe this bullsh*t he will stop being their doctor....they all said no, don't stop..
Has he made some quality comments on chiros too?
on what?
From my experience studying medicine and having a whole heap of chiropractors/chiropractor student mates, there's nothing those parties like more than to sling **** at eachother. I'd have thought any doctor who'd get that animated about the statins debacle would love a good rant about chiros.
ahhhh got ya..thought you meant...ahh doesn't matter...lol
it was a massive sh*t slanging affair...physicians, gps, nurses, teachers and then lil old me...the simpleton of the family...sitting in the corner getting drunk...
Chiros, yea his rant goes something along the lines of........., not being real doctors, only studying 1st year medicine...i then tune out, because i go to a chiro and he helps me...
Spending your Saturday night learning the difference between medical lotions, creams, pastes and ointments.
Spending your Saturday night learning the difference between medical lotions, creams, pastes and ointments.
worse than vaginal discharge?