Replies to post #164907 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[rr50]

So in your esteemed, scientific opinion--what was your opinion of this article I posted over the weekend? I was hoping for a reply... Thanks in advance.

-------------------

rr50 Member Profile rr50

Saturday, November 26, 2016 9:24:17 AM
Re: sunspotter post# 164628
Post # of 164908
Some weekend reading for you amid the London fog

"It’s bad enough that expertise is under attack these days from populist political movements that dismiss specialist opinion as just another establishment ruse. But lately expertise is being criticized from another direction, too — from would-be defenders of science."

"Misconceptions about the relation between scientific research, evidence and expertise."

"While scientists concur that randomized trials are ideal for evaluating the average effects of treatments, such precision isn’t necessary when the benefits are obvious or clear from other data."

"Clinical expertise and rigorous evaluation also differ in their utility at different stages of scientific inquiry. For discovery and explanation, as the clinical epidemiologist Jan Vandenbroucke has argued, practitioners’ instincts, observations and case studies are most useful, whereas randomized controlled trials are least useful. Expertise and systematic evaluation are partners, not rivals."

"Distrusting expertise makes it easy to confuse an absence of randomized evaluations with an absence of knowledge."

"The cult of randomized controlled trials also neglects a rich body of potential hypotheses."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/opinion/sunday/flossing-and-the-art-of-scientific-investigation.html

See Cellceutix seeing real clinical improvement in UPS patients in a proof-of-concept study via endoscopy images.

http://cellceutix.com/cellceutix-phase-2-trial-initial-data-shows-potential-of-brilacidin-as-a-novel-anti-inflammatory-drug-candidate-for-the-induction-of-remission-of-mild-to-moderate-ulcerative-colitis/