Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- home:patients:assessing_literature [02.07.2019] – [Problematic conclusions about human biology] sallieq
+++ home:patients:assessing_literature [09.01.2019] – [Assessing the published literature] sallieq
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Assessing the published literature  ======
+<relatedarticles> [[home:patients:assessing_literature:in_vitro_studies|Differences between in vitro, in vivo, and in silico studies]], [[home:patients:grappling_uncertainty|Grappling with uncertainty about the Marshall Protocol]], [[home:pathogenesis:vitamind:correlation|Mistaking correlation for causation]] </article>
-<relatedarticle> [[home:patients:grappling_uncertainty|Grappling with uncertainty about the Marshall Protocol]] </article>
+Though well-grounded in molecular and clinical data, the conclusions offered by Marshall Protocol researchers are sometimes met with skepticism by clinicians and fellow researchers. Some wonder how the MP science could be valid, given the existence of seemingly contradicting evidence.
-Though well-grounded in molecular and clinical data, the conclusions offered by Marshall Protocol researchers are sometimes met with skepticism by clinicians and fellow researchers. Some wonder how the MP science could be valid, given the existence of any of the seemingly contradicting evidence.
 Researchers who work with Autoimmunity Research Foundation (ARF) take no special pride in arguing that the nature of chronic disease is different than most clinicians and researchers have imagined. Indeed, it makes matters more difficult: the less familiar a conclusion is, the harder it is to persuade someone of its validity.

home/patients/assessing_literature.txt · Last modified: 09.14.2022 by 127.0.0.1