Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement
From: Rolf Nelson (rolf.h.d.nelson@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jan 03 2008 - 18:11:31 MST
- Next message: Daniel Burfoot: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- Previous message: Samantha Atkins: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- In reply to: Daniel Burfoot: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- Next in thread: Daniel Burfoot: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- Reply: Daniel Burfoot: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
On 1/2/08, Daniel Burfoot <daniel.burfoot@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ultimately the only way to discover if the drugs work for real people in the
> real world is for lots of people to use them.
Not sure I follow. If controlled double-blind clinical trials are
unable to give us sufficient data, it seems unlikely that
uncontrolled, uncoordinated, inconsistently-reported one-off
experiments (or, as scientists like to call them, "useless anecdotes")
would be a more reliable source of data.
- Next message: Daniel Burfoot: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- Previous message: Samantha Atkins: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- In reply to: Daniel Burfoot: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- Next in thread: Daniel Burfoot: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- Reply: Daniel Burfoot: "Re: Risk, Reward, and Human Enhancement"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT