@david_colquhoun @JonInNotts @FriendsOfSciMed @latrobe just use the references you used to state that supplements don't benefit *most people
@david_colquhoun Out of interest, who funded study that found no benefits from supplements? As you said; if selling something, it can matter
-
-
@C7RKY (a) there are dozens and (b) its the supplement huckster who are selling, not their opponents -
@david_colquhoun That depends who the opponents are, I suspect. You've not mentioned who funded the study yet...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@C7RKY you can't have a vested interest in publsihing a negative result!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@C7RKY and don't say it's pharma trying to destroy alt med. The vitamins are mostly made by big pharma -
@david_colquhoun I've not said anything. Don't like to do that without access to all the evidence. Hence my interest in unpublished studies. -
@C7RKY we are all interested in unpublished studies. but if supplement huckster had hidden neg ones it would only reinforce the conclusions! -
@david_colquhoun I'm afraid unlike you, I haven't yet ruled out +ve ones being hidden, if they prove 'inconvenient' for another product line -
@C7RKY who on earth would hide a postive trial?! -
@david_colquhoun Why not someone who has a product, who's value is undermined by the findings of the study? Is that so far-fetched? Not sure -
@C7RKY that's a reason to publish ps results, not to suppress them -
@david_colquhoun That a study's findings show there may be no further market for your own existing product, is reason to publish? How so? - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.