Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim
If you are for real, show me then. Prove it. If you are afraid to prove it, what else do you expect me to conclude? That it could possibly be real in spite of the fact that studies have shown it isn't? If I were peddling the product and I knew it was real, why wouldn't I dare to have an accredited facility do the testing and prove to the world that my product is what it says it is? OTOH, if my product is dubious like say Extenze or Enzyte, you bet I won't want it published. What supplement are you talking about? Thought we were talking about glucosamine?
I see. So what is it you think should be done? Abolish all tests? Sure they can be flawed. Sure, new data can come up but while it isn't perfect, it sure beats the alternative. I will agree with you that I don't have a better system than the studies to prove something works but is there a better system? I haven't seen it yet.
Well, the economy is in the crapper so why not? Might as well save another company from going under.
|
Might be time for
somebody to get laid.....
I, personally, would take the word of kknudson, claiming that it helps, over the "tests" which I have never seen. Been a lot of talk about "perception" and placebo effect, but none about bias on the part of the "testers". How an experiment is framed is crucial to the outcome, and is often the major factor in the results.
Using your methodology, who benefits from the sale of glucosamine?? Is it easy to produce, and cheap?? That may well account for the "studies" proving its lack of effectiveness. Why would the drug companies want people taking something cheap, when they could be buying something expensive?? Time to follow the money...