FX uses the scientific method better then JAMA?

Candace Krepel ckrepel at post.its.mcw.edu
Fri Dec 8 09:41:52 EST 1995


U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu wrote:

: To test this premise... the breakfast time show decided to run
: their own experiment (using the scientific method).  They had two
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: children who had not yet eaten breakfast... one was feed a high
: protein breakfast of sausage and eggs, and the other one a high
: sugar breakfast of cereal and donuts.

Although my observations of my own children support the FX conclusion, I
would suggest that what they showed was anecdotal evidence, not scientific
method. As I am sure you know, the scientific method requires that the
investigator control for all factors other than the one being tested. We do
not know what the behavior before and after breakfast is for these two
children on a daily basis (i.e., their "normal" behavior); we do not know
what the results would have been if the children had been fed the opposite
breakfast.

I don't believe the JAMA study (even without reading it, because of the
aforementioned personal experience), but if FX, or anyone else, wishes to
refute the findings of the author(s) of the JAMA article, their science
needs to be much more rigorous than that reported by the poster.

Candy Krepel
Surgical Microbiology Research Lab, Medical College of Wisconsin
ckrepel at post.its.mcw.edu



More information about the Bioforum mailing list