Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevscar
LIT LOVE
Checked 120 plus links in my favoutiresand 150 + documents I have downloaded and I don't have it probably because from the amount of posts I have read I thought it was around 50% anyway.
You can choose to believe me or not but here are 3 things I know which I'll bet the vast majority of forum members have never heard of before.
There are 2 different versions of RSD?CRPS type 1 and the second has to be treated differently.
A Paper saying that there is growing evidence doctors have been looking in the wrong direction for 65 years and sympathetic reflexs may not be the cause.
7-8% of us may get wounds that never heal.
Tell me which ones you have never heard of and I'll post links
|
I'm not arguing that any of the info is correct or incorrect. The data is meaningless when quoted out of context, IMO. It is very easy to manipulate data. Were there 20 patients in the control sample or 2000... Etc.
Throwing out unrelated bits of information that have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of a study you're quoting, but can't link to just confuses me further.
fMichael is a good role model for us all...not only does he cite his references, he breaks down potential concerns about the validity of certain data.
10-20-2012, 11:47 PM
Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode