ru35 said:85% of medical research is bunk. That's why there's a new movement in health sciences called EBM(Evidence Based Medicine). Before believing wholeheartedly in any study, I would first check to see if it follows the EBM process of research. Studies that have been proven have also been disproven based on invalid research methods. I'm not saying anyone's suggested studies are bunk, but there's a good chance some of it is based on the numbers.
Where would one acquire such evidence? Certainly not on the anonymous internets wherein people discuss their use of illegal substances.
However, to be able to adequately analyze any research or study, one must first be familar with the material in which they're analyzing. This usually requires formal education in such subjects, which, generally speaking, is not representative of most people posting on steroid boards.
Arguing "invalid research methods" really gets at the heart of pretty much what all research is based on. For a basic example, Newton's calculation of the gravitational constand was certainly limited by his, by today's standards, invalid research methods. Yet, the principles and concepts remain. They are merely expounded upon with modern-day technology and techniques unavailable yesterday. Every area of science is this way, medicine and pharmacology included. It's pretty much a given from the get-go; that is, everyone already knows this.
And stating that "85% of medical research is bunk" is quite a statement. I'd love to hear where that nice, even number comes from.
