3 ms·

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3023118/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3023118/

• rhexs 7y ago
  "An open label, noncomparative clinical study" from the Indian Journal of Pharmacology isn't doing much to disprove my point.
  • bfieidhbrjr 7y ago
    That seems a little racist, but in any case: There aren't very good studies for basically anything in medicine (let alone outside of medicine). Triple/Double-blind large studies are expensive in the extreme. We don't have strong evidence for the majority of things we do. Recent examples might be mamograms causing more cancer than it detects and stents, it turns out, are no better than a placebo. Therefore, the lack of a decent studies isn't in itself that interesting. Neither is it illogical for people to turn to old wives tales for knowledge because the filter of history on the knowledge is more powerful than retail medicine in terms of anecdata.
• striking 7y ago
  N=20, and I don't think it was double blind. I don't think this helps us.
  • bfieidhbrjr 7y ago
    We've been giving people stents for decades without any evidence that it was a great idea, so gimme a break :-)