Mainstream medicine sidelines journals like this one, and the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. I believe they are wrong to do so. We've had two whole threads now in which we discussed our respective views concerning alt med.
quote:Mainstream medicine sidelines journals like this one, and the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. I believe they are wrong to do so.
We know you believe this.
And you are correct that those who let evidence, and only evidence, be their guide in trying to discover something about the natural world are biased against poor methodology and shoddy analysis.
Such substandard work leads to much error, LindaLou, of that we are certain. You are correct that scientific studies can be flawed and biased. We are telling you that many of the studies in the journals you cite are flawed and biased. What you are essentially saying is that since any study can be biased and flawed, we might as well just pick the ones that have the results we like the best. The thing is, just because you aren't willing or able to be identify bias and flaws in studies doesn't mean nobody else isn't. We have explained in detail exactly how they are flawed and biased. It is your choice, of course, to remain closed to the possibility that the scientists here actually know what they are talking about, and also closed to the possibility that you could be wrongheaded in your approach to evidence.
I also note that you haven't demonstrated that your belief that mainstream medicine is wrong to marginalize such journals is based in anything other than your preference to believe whatever study, report, or anecdote you wish regardless of the quality of the evidence or reporting.
This means that you don't care about being correct if it means having to challenge what you prefer to believe.
Tell me, do you think that such an attitude is biased in such a way to lead to less error, or more?