[split] Chippy vs the World
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2013, 04:29 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 04:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 03:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  My neg rep cherry is firmly in tact.

That said, I'm generally not opposed to deleting rep points.

Feels a bit to me like saying I'm still a virgin 'cause I've only had anal sex. Offensive prick will leave soon enough of his own accord. Drinking Beverage

Maybe he likes it, Girly. I've seen several forum members who's personal philosophy evidently is: Better negative attention than none at all. Might have run out of audience members IRL.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chopdoc's post
03-11-2013, 05:02 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 04:29 PM)Chopdoc Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 04:12 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Feels a bit to me like saying I'm still a virgin 'cause I've only had anal sex. Offensive prick will leave soon enough of his own accord. Drinking Beverage

Maybe he likes it, Girly. I've seen several forum members who's personal philosophy evidently is: Better negative attention than none at all. Might have run out of audience members IRL.

Maybe so, Chopdoc. But I'm betting he's getting as bored of me as I already am of him. Probably don't have an audience IRL (Girly had to look that up Blush ) but he's running out of an audience here as well. He'll just find a new audience where he can be a prick for a bit and then move on to another one after that. He really really likes being a prick.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-11-2013, 05:15 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 05:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 04:29 PM)Chopdoc Wrote:  Maybe he likes it, Girly. I've seen several forum members who's personal philosophy evidently is: Better negative attention than none at all. Might have run out of audience members IRL.

Maybe so, Chopdoc. But I'm betting he's getting as bored of me as I already am of him. Probably don't have an audience IRL (Girly had to look that up Blush ) but he's running out of an audience here as well. He'll just find a new audience where he can be a prick for a bit and then move on to another one after that. He really really likes being a prick.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chopdoc's post
03-11-2013, 05:42 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 05:53 PM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 09:06 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(02-11-2013 10:58 PM)Chippy Wrote:  These comprehensive reviews demonstrate that not only is there no evidence that dosing above the RDA is helpful they also they suggest it may be harmful.

Meta-regression analyses, meta-analyses, and trial sequential analyses of the effects of supplementation with Beta-carotene, vitamin a, and vitamin e singly or in different combinations on all-cause mortality: do we have evidence for lack of harm?

Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases.

Those studies cover vitamins A, C and E (and more).

Please try and read the abstracts carefully and familiarise yourself with what a systematic review and meta-analysis mean and what Cochrane is. Don't come back to me with some idiotic response else I will ignore it.

There are more such authoritative systematic reviews and meta-analysis which I can provide you.

So there is good evidence that what the good doctor Fulton is advising actually increases mortality.

Further, the possible harmful effects of overdosing need to be set against the absence of any positive evidence for a therapeutic effect in overdosing.

I read the studies - not just the abstract. While the first study cited OTHER studies done with double blind, the study ITSELF is not double blind. Did you just read that abstract and hoped no one would double check you? You lost all credibility what so ever.

Your second study you cited also does not have a double blind. It's right there in the abstract..."Three authors extracted data. Random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were conducted. Risk of bias was considered in order to minimise the risk of systematic errors...."

For someone who knows so much about clinical trials, you forgot that double blind eliminates risk of bias. This study was not double blind.

You are retarded, chip. Of course - now you'll either conceded that your data is faulty, or you will say, "this changes nothing.." And dismiss your blatant error.




Everyone see that? He doesn't have a double blind study.


You are an idiot. The studies I cited are systematic reviews and meta-analyses of double-blind placebo-controlled studies. There is no such thing as a double-blind systematic review or double-blind meta-analysis. Do you know what double-blind means? How can the concept of double-blinding apply to a a meta-analysis or a systematic review? It is you that is retarded.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 05:59 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 05:42 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You are an idiot. The studies I cited are systematic reviews and meta-analyses of double-blind placebo-controlled studies. There is no such thing as a double-blind systematic review or double-blind meta-analysis. Do you know what double-blind means? How can the concept of double-blinding apply to a a meta-analysis or a systematic review? It is you that is retarded.

Fixed. 3 errors in 6 sentences. You been drinking ChipUpYourAss?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-11-2013, 05:51 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 08:14 AM)Abeautifulmind Wrote:  Chippy - the order of words is integral to the understanding of them. You didn't say college of gastroenterology. You said gastroenterology college.

Ex: a rare steak
Vs: a steak rare

"A steak rare" is ungrammatical. "College of gastroenterology" and "gastroenterology college" are both grammatical and mean the same thing.

You also claimed that lactose is a monosaccharide and you read "the brain needs glucose" as "the brain only needs glucose".

If I say "humans need water", that is not the same as sying "humans only need water".

All of your post was a bunch of idiotic and ignorant blather. You tried to show that I know nothing about the matter but succeeded only in demonstrating your own abject ignorance. You managed to be wrong about everything.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 05:53 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 05:50 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 05:42 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You are an idiot. The studies I cited are systematic reviews and meta-analyses of double-blind placebo-controlled studies. There is no such thing as a double-blind systematic review or double-blind meta-analysis. Do you know what double-blind means? How can the concept of double-blinding apply to a a meta-analysis or a systematic review? It is you that is retarded.

Fixed. 3 errors in 4 sentences. You been drinking ChipOnYourShoulder?

Drinking no but otherwise drugged so yeah my typing is going to suck for the next hour or so.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 06:20 PM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 09:06 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  For someone who knows so much about clinical trials, you forgot that double blind eliminates risk of bias. This study was not double blind.

No it doesn't. The purpose of a double-blind is to eliminate the placebo effect and other nonspecific effect such as the Hawthorne effect and it doesn't apply to meta-analysis and systematic reviews.

You don't know anything about experiment design, systematic reviews or meta-analysis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 06:15 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 09:39 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  College of gastroenterology vs gastroenterology college.

They both mean the same thing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 06:20 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 10:52 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 05:37 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The burden of evidence always falls on the claimant.
I am so happy that we both agree.
You made the claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

You demanded of Mark evidence in the form of double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials
Now instead of being a weasel I am again offering you an opportunity to become a man.
Provide the evidence backing your claim. (Man up!)

I already have. I've provided you two comprehensive and authoritative systematic reviews that show that supplementation of antioxidants above the RDA increases mortality. So I've provided evidence that not only is consistent dosing above the RDA unnecessary it is also harmful. I also provided another Cochrane review that shows that dosing women above the RDA will neither prevent nor treat their post-natal depression.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: