Changes

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence.  This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands.  Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory?  [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence.  This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands.  Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory?  [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitide of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

==Confused==