You are here: Welcome to the MPKB » Welcome to the MPKB » Resources for patients » Confronting uncertainty about the Marshall Protocol
Home

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
home:patients:grappling_uncertainty [07.11.2019] – [Frequent question] sallieqhome:patients:grappling_uncertainty [08.01.2019] – [Understanding studies] sallieq
Line 70: Line 70:
 Another common source of questions is recent studies. PubMed has tens of millions of studies. Some of them, many in fact, seem to contradict the conclusions put forth in the Knowledge Base or in the ARF research team's published papers. Often, a critical thinker may be able to apply the evidence and criticisms in the Knowledge Base to a study and make sense of it. Another common source of questions is recent studies. PubMed has tens of millions of studies. Some of them, many in fact, seem to contradict the conclusions put forth in the Knowledge Base or in the ARF research team's published papers. Often, a critical thinker may be able to apply the evidence and criticisms in the Knowledge Base to a study and make sense of it.
    
-An example: one study concluded that vitamin D might lower the incidence of colorectal cancer.(({{pubmed>long:17556697}})) A critical thinker might realize that the study was only for four years and might even be able to find studies over a longer period, which contradicted the original study's findings.(({{pubmed>long:12117397}})) +An example: one study concluded that vitamin D might lower the incidence of colorectal cancer.(({{pubmed>long:17556697}})) A critical thinker might realize that the study was only for four years and might even be able to find studies over a longer period, which contradicted the original study's findings. See (({{pubmed>long:18065602}})), (({{pubmed>long:17991672}})), (({{pubmed>long:18326620}})), (({{pubmed>long:18326621}})) and select OXFORD//academic//  to read the comments.
  
 Using statistical inferences, John P. A. Ioannidis concluded in the prestigious journal //PLoS Medicine// that half of published research must be wrong.(({{pubmed>long:16060722}})) The arguments of that paper are beyond the scope of this article; but in grappling with a confusing study, it's seriously worth considering how Ioannidis could be right.  Using statistical inferences, John P. A. Ioannidis concluded in the prestigious journal //PLoS Medicine// that half of published research must be wrong.(({{pubmed>long:16060722}})) The arguments of that paper are beyond the scope of this article; but in grappling with a confusing study, it's seriously worth considering how Ioannidis could be right. 
home/patients/grappling_uncertainty.txt · Last modified: 09.14.2022 by 127.0.0.1
© 2015, Autoimmunity Research Foundation. All Rights Reserved.