HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
The College Hockey Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 30 May 1999 12:06:10 -0500
Reply-To:
Indulis R Rutks <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Indulis R Rutks <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Comments:
To: Vicki Price <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (24 lines)
On Sat, 29 May 1999, Vicki Price wrote:
 
> I think it's pathetic that anyone would want to
> spend so much time trying to demean even published medical information,
> saying it's not a worthwhile study, without even seeing the full text.
>
> To refute and belittle the findings of The American Journal of Sports
> Medicine and The American Orthopedic Society is pathetic.
 
I haven't seen an issue of the AJSM, but if it's anything like either of
the big 2 US medical journals (Journal of the American Medical Association
and The New England Journal of Medicine), then it probably has a "Letters"
section where *doctors* refute and comment on the findings of published
studies. I've seen a few studies in the NEJM that were set up in such a
skewed fashion, that I was amazed the editors accepted it for publication.
 
My point is that anything published in a medical journal can and should be
scrutinized, and not taken as the absolute truth.
 
-Indy Rutks ([log in to unmask])
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2