Hey Reggie I'll let JL comment on some of the mathematical leaps of your article...but The article is interesting in ways you may not have noticed: Reggie quoted: >But then something odd began to happen. In 1995, the Lancet published >the results of a huge international study of heart attack survival >rates among 58,000 patients - and the amazing life-saving abilities >of magnesium injections had simply vanished. Anistreplase fared little >better: the current view is that its real effectiveness is barely half >that suggested by the original trial. <snip> >In the long war against Britain's single biggest killer, a few >disappointments are obviously inevitable. And over the last decade >or so, scientists have identified other heart attack treatments which >in trials reduced mortality by up to 30 percent. > >But again, something odd seems to be happening. Once these drugs get >out of clinical trials and onto the wards, they too seem to lose their >amazing abilities. This reminds me of the claims of the alternative diet folks. "Something odd" seems to happen in the real world after time: alternative diets seem to lose their amazing abilities. ;) Of course, we don't have hard-nosed research (only anecdotal stuff) to justify either claim (that instincto/frutarianism/NH/whatever works so great). Reggie do you notice that the way science corrects its errors is by doubting its own research conclusions, by making them concrete and reproducable? Again: >In 1995, the Lancet published >the results of a huge international study of heart attack survival >rates among 58,000 patients - and the amazing life-saving abilities >of magnesium injections had simply vanished. This is precisely what is absent from all these flakey alternative diets based on whatever theory sounds good. Science uses mathematical rigor to explore the world and its own results, trying to separate the crap from the useful. The irony to me is that you use such an example to dis research in general, when it was research which uncovered the falsity of conclusions from earlier research. This is the nature of the beast as it fights the human tendency for simplistic belief (which is exploited by alternative diet promoters). Science is certainly not the be all and end all of human inquiry, but it is the best method of crap-detecting I can see out there. One alternative to the cautious use of research finding is to disregard science altogether and believe anything you care to because it feels good to have a certain belief regardless of reality. Much easier for many than accepting that the world is dynamic, shifting, complex, and more or less undefinable and unknowable. And then going with the flow. Cheers, Kirt PS. It is of very questionable legality to post whole articles without persmission from the author/publisher. I personally don't care, but you should probably be aware of that if you're not. Secola /\ Nieft [log in to unmask]