Quote:
Originally posted by Harrison:
[qb] which they report is:
[snip]
- inconclusive,
- resultant from what they perceive as "flawed" or imperfect trial designs (from Europe),
- actually decidedly poor, in that early designs of devices (techniques and designs were truly experimental and certainly prone to high risks) resulted in complications and failures.
[snip]
[/qb]
|
Seems like they are trying to have it both ways. They are saying they will only use US data on the efficacy of ADR and yet use old European data to prove their denial. With that logic I don't see why they don't deny brain surgery as the Inca's tried it and their patients usually died. Geez.
Also, I'm curious about the 2 reports that has Harrison has linked above. These seem to be presentations giving to professional meetings. Are these presentations then actually published in a journal somehwhere? I can see that being a sticking point as they can say this wasn't actaully published and not subject to a true peer review. Just my thoughts as I don't know the answer to this.