You guys and everyone else... are welcome.
Great. But aren't the other side going to just point out that it was funded by "our" side, and therefore be biased?
Just a thought. Carry on with the happy stufff..............
Great. But aren't the other side going to just point out that it was funded by "our" side, and therefore be biased?
Just a thought. Carry on with the happy stufff..............
It doesn't matter. This is what's called a meta-analysis or meta-study, which is a study of studies, if you will. It's the first attempt to collect, organize, analyze and interpret information produced by others. The intent is to formulate a research question, then determine whether available literature contains enough information to answer the research question.
The answer is a qualified "yes, there is." And more importantly, even the most biased reviewer would have to conclude that the available literature supports the conclusions. Then comes the inevitable recommendation that researchers always make, which is that further study is warranted.
I read the whole thing, by the way.
Great. But aren't the other side going to just point out that it was funded by "our" side, and therefore be biased?
Just a thought. Carry on with the happy stufff..............
And besides, we can simply point out that all of the pharmaceutical companies do THEIR own studies which the FDA happily accepts, why can't we? At least we have years of real world use behind us, unlike the drugs that are pushed through only to show serious complications in the general population *cough Chantix cough*