On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:51:01 +1000, David Strike <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2000 2:19 PM, Reef Fish wrote:
>
>> >On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, David Strike wrote:
>(snip)
>> >> One of
>> >> the ancient remedies, however, was the use of ginger; ginger-beer;
>ginger
>> >> biscuits; neat ginger root, etc.  Apparently recent clinical studies
>> suggest
>> >> that this is so, and that ginger has a superior action in the
treatment
>> of
>> >> motion sickness when compared with synthetic drugs.
>
>> Strike!  Remember this Feeesh Rule of Thumb <a serious one>:
>
>> Unless you have reason to believe a "medical/clinical" study was
DESIGNED,
>> PERFORMED, and ANALYZED properly, pay no heed.  MOST of such studies are
>> motivated by "academic money grubbing in the name of 'research'", and
>> the "researchers", M.D.s and the like are generally not very well versed
>> in the design and analysis of such "studies", and their conclusions are
>> NOT supported by the studies at least 97% of the time!
>
>I was very mindful of your words - and Rule of Thumb - from a previous
>discussion - but I was in a quandary! :-)

Actually the previous discussion didn't exactly apply here, though
SOMEWHAT related.  :-)

>The Company that manufactures these particular ginger tablets here in Oz
>enjoys a good reputation.  They actually state, categorically, on the
packet
>that, "Recent clinical studies suggest that ginger..."etc.  Nevertheless,
I
>did remember our previous discussion on the validity (or lack of!), of
>comments like these!

The claim would have been more accurate, on the part of the company,
if the statement had been "SOME recent clinical studies suggest that
ginger MAY ...".

Chuck Shipley and I cited some apparently more VALID studies (in
the design of the double-blind experiments) that concluded that
ginger did no better than the placebo.

>However, any scepticism on my part might have destroyed the personal faith
>that I have in ginger tablets as a preventative against sea-sickness!

THAT part is PERFECTLY valid.  "Personal FAITH".  FAITH requires no
scientific study of any kind!   In your case, you actually had PROOF
(as Lawrence Leong) that it actually WORKED (for YOU).   If you had
stopped there, then you would have been on solid ground 100%.  :-)

>Selfishness got the better of me so I chose the soft option and prefaced
the
>claim with, "Apparently".

That reference to "clinical study" was the part that triggered my
automatic reaction from a "scientific and statistical" point of view.
>
>Recognising that I've painted myself into a corner, the best that I can
come
>up with is that it was a case of temporary insanity on my part!  :-)
>
>Strike

Not at all!  Your statement of "temporary insanity" APPEARS to be
a GROSS OVERSTATEMENT on your part, IMHO!  :-)

-- Bob.