送交者: xj 于 2006-2-08, 16:12:29:
回答: 原来如此，来人啦，把洗脚给双龟了! 造假越来越严重 由 Latino2 于 2006-2-08, 15:47:32:
It is true that studies conducted on old women may not be generalized to young women and all men, but the study design is valid and the etiological effect of dietary fat on cancer and CVD is valid. Therefore, if the biological mechanism of dietary fat on cancer and CVD is independent of age and gender (which may not be totally true), results in this study make sense.
It is also true that the dietary study is an add on study, that is, the WHI study was initially for hormone therapy. However, the dietary intervention was carefully randomized and monitored. It is a standard randomized trial. It is actually a good idea to test different hypotheses on a single cohort, given that the logistics of initiating and recruiting people is tremendous.
On the other hand, if the dietary fat does have effect on cancer and CVD (as the alternative hypothesis states), it should show its effect among old women too. This is a standard refutism framework of Karl Popper. One negative result can refute the hypothesis while tens of positive results cannot prove the hypothesis. Sure this is narrowly defined refutism.
Again, you can say maybe the dietary fat has very small effect on old women, given they are quite different from the rest of us. Maybe the dietary fat has some effect in men or young women. So more research is needed.