dat19 said:
Look at yourself man
Let me talk to the Doctor in The Devil: if some drug company salesman rolled up in your office with some (claimed) miracle cure and said: trust us, there's a web forum of users who rave about it (ie those who haven't died), a great review in Good Housekeeping (but not the BMJ), Paul McCartney takes it, but we didn't bother testing it because there is only Mathematical Proof, what would you do?
I am a drug company salesman, and the above argument is very good, however, where this argument falls down is, a doctor needs proof of medicines effectiveness, because.
Doc is not end user, patient is so has to be nore vigilant.
Mana won't kill you in normal use, ie i does not affect bodies metabolism, and would not interact with your othewr equipment causing death.
Proof with drugs is based on measurable parameters, then any differences are expressed mathematically.
All drugs on the market in UK have been through 3 phases of trials mainly safety, the post marketing trials come after drug has some use in the community.
Docs will use drugs with little evidence if company puts enough money behind it and makes this money available to heads of department.
Drugs will be used if very pretty Blonde female rep sells it, John Watson is not pretty so no incentive there.
Oh and Mana is used purely to enhance a hobby and it is trivial to compare to life saving drugs, which are chosen for objective rather than subjective reasons.
Dat I have never tried Mana in my own system, I have heard it in Bubs sytem but never heard that system sans mana, does it work, I don't honestly know either way, and as a result would nebver try to say it is a lotta rubbish, It looks ugly but again that is a matter of taste, I would never wear orange trousers but some would.
So dat before bouncing back any of Bubs arguments lets here some of yours,
You mentioned drug trials so letas start there.
How many people did you recruit for your trial, was there any runout phase of old equipment, what were you compairing it too, and what was the control, was it double blind, single blind, or open label, how often did you take measurements, who measured these results(were they qualified), where are the results published, what type of bell curve did you apply to remove spurious results, what was the mathematical significance of these results. I could go on as drug trials have so many different parameters but these are enough to be getting on with.
You are asking bub to prove all these, then surely we can expect the same from you, it doesn't work and heres the proof.
Bub has answered all your arguments and doesn't have proof in this VERY subjective matter, his posts are meant to help others into decideing for themselves, you are trying to make a fool of him, but with the circular argument you are using it's you that is looking foolish, you have yet to answer any other posts and it now seems as if you are mearly attacking Dr McP and don't have solid basis for your argument.
Dat
put up or shutup
Paul