|
| |||
|
|
There might be some fence-sitters who'd be swayed, but I don't know if there's enough of them to make funding such studies worth it. I was thinking of the fence-sitters, yeah. I know that with the vaccination stuff, there's a lot of parents who are fence-sitters (i.e. not getting their children vaccinated because they aren't sure it's a good idea), and that's because they don't know the facts about vaccines. The same may be true of chelation therapy, so I figure having more ammunition from a real study wouldn't hurt. Of course, there's a limit to how much money can be spent on it. I mostly agree with you about NCCAM not being a very good idea in the first place, but this might not be entirely their fault, since they only let this study go through under pressure from Rep. Burton. I looked him up and yeah, he's on Government Oversight and Reform (!). It's not surprising that they shit their pants when he started heckling them. ...gah, this whole thing makes me angry. My father is a physiologist, so he has to apply to NIH for grants for real studies a lot. It blows my mind that scientists with good studies get turned down all the time, yet they'll shell out $30 million for a dangerous farce like this. Post a comment in response: |
||||
|
Privacy Policy -
COPPA Legal Disclaimer - Site Map |