Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Health & Nutrition
Lost one this Morning
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hippie Rancher" data-source="post: 1755939" data-attributes="member: 4203"><p>I have your words as evidence. most of what you posted in this thread are your personal anecdotes. anecdotes are not data, as they say. photos are a good method of documenting individual events in individual points in time. they are parts of a whole. your personal anecdotes need more information and corroboration. observations are important, but conclusions need more evidence. experiments need duplication. heck even observations benefit from duplication. who else is noticing this? any veterinarians reporting this stuff? packers? </p><p></p><p> I read the paper you posted after this comment and tried to follow some of the notations. it is late and I am a little out of practice with reading these kinds of things (and especially statistics). one thing I may have missed or perhaps indeed it isn't there, was sample sizes for your various personal observations. (for example how many "normal" deer heads vs brachygnathic specimens?) I also noticed a fair amount of what seemed to be misleading language in terms of the focus on glyphosate and then the footnotes actually referring to other substances or phenomenon. unless it was a self-cite of your own work.</p><p></p><p>in general without a real deep dive I am somewhat skeptical of some of the correlation/causation conclusions you are pushing but the overall work seems OK on a late night first read. </p><p></p><p>that doesn't change anything I said about homeopathic treatments. that is just flat out whacky stuff that has no basis in science or reality. the only place for it is in treating humans as a placebo. no doubt it works well for many in that situation. heck I have even experienced it. LOL</p><p></p><p>and of course your claims for healing times are also just personal anecdotes. without something like dated before and after xrays, it is just the subjective observation/claim of one person about a naturally highly variable phenomenon.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hippie Rancher, post: 1755939, member: 4203"] I have your words as evidence. most of what you posted in this thread are your personal anecdotes. anecdotes are not data, as they say. photos are a good method of documenting individual events in individual points in time. they are parts of a whole. your personal anecdotes need more information and corroboration. observations are important, but conclusions need more evidence. experiments need duplication. heck even observations benefit from duplication. who else is noticing this? any veterinarians reporting this stuff? packers? I read the paper you posted after this comment and tried to follow some of the notations. it is late and I am a little out of practice with reading these kinds of things (and especially statistics). one thing I may have missed or perhaps indeed it isn't there, was sample sizes for your various personal observations. (for example how many "normal" deer heads vs brachygnathic specimens?) I also noticed a fair amount of what seemed to be misleading language in terms of the focus on glyphosate and then the footnotes actually referring to other substances or phenomenon. unless it was a self-cite of your own work. in general without a real deep dive I am somewhat skeptical of some of the correlation/causation conclusions you are pushing but the overall work seems OK on a late night first read. that doesn't change anything I said about homeopathic treatments. that is just flat out whacky stuff that has no basis in science or reality. the only place for it is in treating humans as a placebo. no doubt it works well for many in that situation. heck I have even experienced it. LOL and of course your claims for healing times are also just personal anecdotes. without something like dated before and after xrays, it is just the subjective observation/claim of one person about a naturally highly variable phenomenon. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Health & Nutrition
Lost one this Morning
Top