[sweden]

Hmm I'm pretty sure that 'hoped' in this case means something like: "Well, in a normal case we would have recommended 12 doses of the medicine in order to get a full recovery."

This is not like testing stuff with a computer program, you can not reset the human to a known state and replicate the experiment all over again.

Following your logic, even all vaccines are a lie, how can we know that the vaccines that we take every year are doing anything?

[_Wintermute]

> Following your logic, even all vaccines are a lie, how can we know that the vaccines that we take every year are doing anything?

By having a basic understanding of the scientific method and control groups.

[cmdrfred]

>Following your logic, even all vaccines are a lie, how can we know that the vaccines that we take every year are doing anything?

peer reviewed double blinded placebo controlled trials, this is an anecdote.

[glynjackson]

There are many, many ways to test! A control group, quasi-experiment evaluation etc. "Correlation does not imply causation". All she has is a hypothesis, a theory based on observational research, while this is ok, the article tries to pass this off as 'fact'.

I'm not staying I disagree with her 'hypothesis' but, people should require evidence before accepting it as fact. Maybe if she have quoted studies, instead she used well know experiments to justify the hypothesis. When the one experiments she did quote by Sergey Metalnikov even concludes...

"The difficulty for the investigator lies not so much in inducing such responses, but in employing the proper controls, both immunological and psychological, in order to demonstrate that these responses exist and to explore the underlying mechanisms." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3908/

I guess a book entitled "What I think" would not sell as well.