3 ms·
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But there is only an absence if you choose to throw out the hundreds of "not good enough" studies indicating ef
by cwkoss 3y ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But there is only an absence if you choose to throw out the hundreds of "not good enough" studies indicating effects in the same direction.
There is a weird contrarianism a lot of people seem to relish in when it comes to natural medicine having an effect.
The reason pharmaceuticals have studies that prove effects is because there is a giant profit engine powering them and a regulatory system requiring it. It's hard and expensive to do a huge well controlled study of garlic because most modern people eat garlic as a regular part of their diet. It would be hard to find statistically significant effects for prozac if the control group used it as a seasoning.
- melagonster 3y agosorry, do it not pass the test? usually any drug should pass test.
- anon____ 3y ago> It's hard and expensive to do a huge well controlled study of garlic because most modern people eat garlic as a regular part of their diet. It would be hard to find statistically significant effects for prozac if the control group used it as a seasoning. If everybody already takes this "medicine" then what's the problem? We are saved! Or... Wait a minute! How come common cold is still common?! Also, if this were true it'd be like saying air saves us from suffocating. Well, duh.
- fatfingerd 3y agoLots of correlations should exist with your chemical, and I don't see them, so if it floats it's a witch.