SMS wrote:
> And it's a cop out, because what he really means is that only his junk
> science evidence has any validity, and that anyone that chooses to
> question it is basing their opinion on prejudice.
Having read a fair bit of it (not as much as Guy and Tony) I have found
the holes in the population studies to be orders of magnitude smaller
than the holes in the case-control work. So I distrust the latter
considerably more. It's not about prejudice, it's about the population
being reproducible and the case-control having methodological bloopers
on a frightening scale and results that are quantitavely all over the
place, a clear and direct piece of evidence that they aren't any good.
In short, it calls attention to itself as junk science. That the
population studies are junk is based on, errrr, you saying so.
As for opinions based on prejudice, let's have a look at
http://www.velovision.co.uk/cgi-bin/show_comments.pl?storynum=777
The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot! It's transparently
obvious from that that Scharf has either a chip on his shoulder or is
just incapable of being the just-the-facts honest broker he likes to
portray himself as.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/