On 10/5/10 8:08 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message ...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 01:52:32 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:




Beats head on desk...

No, Carole, that is not what the test proved. You get a zero for
yesterday's reading and comprehension score. Try once more reread it
and see what the what the study actually showed.



http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm
"At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the
supplemented group (p0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached
3.85 g (p 0.01). "

IOW the low silicon group were underweight.

That's what they claim but it isn't true.

Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems.

No Carole read my annotated part up there. Their so called "control
group" wasn't really a "Control Group". You do know what a control
group is, don't you Carole?

In this Study while it claims to use a "control group" for comparison
again a group which was fed suppliments. They actually created a
group which was artificially deprived of all trace elements and
called it a control.

No moron. The purpose of the study was to determine if silica additives to food were harmful or not.
It just so happened that the studies showed the efficacy of silica and the detriment of not adding it.

Wrong. It showed the detriment of not adding any minerals.

When the study was at the 23rd day, they compared a group which they
called "a control Group" with a group which was fed supplemented
food.

The study was not flawed, it makes perfect sense and demonstrates quite adequately that silica is essential which we knew already.

Wrong again. It was flawed. Its design was very poor and didn't test
what they thought they wre testing.

Why is the study flawed.

IT is a fallacy of false comparison.

Give up bob, you're clutching at straws.

Wrong. He is completely correct.

The control group should have been a Group fed with a "normal" diet.

In your obsessive little mind.

And in the study.

The test was to show suppliments had efficacy over a normal diet. The
test did not prove that. The test should have been called a failure
because they didn't show any efficacy over a normal diet. It did show
that when artificially deprived of trace elements chickens do not do
well.

I think the purpose of the study was to show that silica additves weren't harmful.

You think? Wrong.

However, regardless of what What the purpose was, the design didn't
address the purpose.

They did not even show Silicon is necessary. They artificially
deprived the false group called control subjects of **All Trace
Elements**.

Rubbish.

Incorrect.

They fed the test subjects a *supplemented diet* and assumed the
difference was because of the silicates used.

This is not really Quality work.

If this was a PhD paper I wonder how the defendant handled the
argument?

I am sorry if this is just a bit technical for you carole. A control
group is a group which is considered "normalized" for a comparison.

For example if you wanted to do a test to show eating a high Sodium
diet would cause temporary wieght gain (water weight), you would not
create a control group by feeding your control group an artificially
low sodium diet for a week before the test begins, would you?

Reading and understanding any sort of results of any experiment
requires a skill set which must be learned. The use of logic and
critical reading is a must.

Go back to school bob ...no that wouldn't work, you're too set in your ways.
Go and take a panadol and have a lie down.

Nice personal attacks. Your best argument.

Jeff