dsm scribbled:
You bought into this thread - I asked you for why the study was flawed.
If providing some sort of backing is too much then say so but please don't
resort to ad hominem comments at me as it looks so much like an attempt to
cover up your inability to back up your statement on the research.
dsm, here is what I said in the thread:
"dsm, I think the salient point here is that testing with the iron lung is essentially useless because it does not approximate closely enough the real person. I don't see Rested Gal's comments as "apples and oranges" at all"
AND
"dsm... I did not get the impression that RG is saying that the tests are flawed because they can't emulate ALL human responses. It seems to me that she is saying that the tests are flawed because they can't emulate ANY human responses due to the lack of response loop."
AND
"Yes, I HAVE read these studies and yes, before you suggest it, I'm NOT a respirologist or scientist in any way. I HAVE, however, done research (had to write a thesis based on original research when I completed a Master's degree in 1989, and continue to be involved in research in my workplace. So, to answer your question, while I would not in any way consider myself a "researcher" and I am in no way qualified to suggest how to design a better study regarding APAP machines, I am qualified to look at the studies presented and say that I think they are flawed based on design. If the design is bad, so too is the study."
I've been clear that my objection to the study has to do with it's not accurately emulating a real person.
I've been clear and upfront that I'm not a researcher and have little to offer on how to redesign an APAP study.
I've made no effort, as you suggest, to "cover up [my] inability to back up [my] statement on the research" as I've told you what I think is wrong with the research.
dsm scribbled further:
All you are saying that it is your humble opinion that the study is flawed
you offer nothing else. That fine by me.
You have me figured out, with one exception... I've never suggested that my opinion is "humble."
dsm went on to scribble:
At least SWS is polite enough to offer material to start with rather than smokescreens & personal comments.
SWS is a better man than I, no argument about this from me. However, the "smokescreen" to which you refer is your own... namedropping and holier-than-thou attitude. Further, the "personal comments" started with your condescending, smarmy "(I am making one assumption here and that is that you have read this report and thus feel justified in saying what you have about it being flawed. Before I go any further, please do confirm that you read it - thanks )" crack. You intended that as a smart-mouthed way to shut me up, seemingly because I dared agree with RG.
dsm FINALLY finished scribbling:
Cheers
Are you kidding me? Smarmy to the end... dsm, if you don't want to swim in the pool with other folk, GET YOUR OWN POOL. Disagreement is healthy. Collectively, we find the RIGHT answers by challenging the existing answers; don't be so quick to dismiss the comments of others just because they don't agree with your own opinion.
So, go ahead, scribble a rebuttal and have the last word (I KNOW you will)... I'm going back behind my smokescreen, my lack of scientific acumen, my woefully inadequate use of grammar and, most embarrassingly, my utter inability to measure up to the great minds that surround me. I am a misery, mock me and my sarcasm.
_________________
CPAPopedia Keywords Contained In This Post (Click For Definition):
APAP
Buy a new hat, drink a good wine, treat yourself, and someone you love, to a new bauble, live while you are alive... you never know when the mid-town bus is going to have your name written across its front bumper!
