In Defense of Ephedrine

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. Originally posted by Hal
    I can't refute or confirm anything without a citation.
    Then I guess you'd better start searching.


  2. Or I just discount them as little more than legend, since actual citations aren't provided.
    •   
       


  3. Originally posted by Hal
    Or I just discount them as little more than legend, since actual citations aren't provided.

    Thats fine too, but thats the easy way out. Most of these I found are also derivitives of Neurology.com, an online database of related studies, sorry man, but I think you're out gunned.

  4. Maybe, maybe...but without a citation I don't have anything to respond to. Gimme a cittation or two. I'll respond to them.

  5. Originally posted by Hal
    Maybe, maybe...but without a citation I don't have anything to respond to. Gimme a cittation or two. I'll respond to them.
    Would you like that with coffee and the morning paper?

    To be honest, I dont give a **** where they came from, the publishing 'magazine' is no where important as the facility that conducted the study (in my opinion). When I see a study, I see what institution covered and conducted it, not where I found it. Granted if it were a good study, it would be posted in a high class journal, but I think these are basic studies and speak for themselves.
    •   
       


  6. Any study worth publishing is worth publishing in a good journal. If the study can't stand up to the rigours of a good journal, well...it's almost certainly crap.

  7. Originally posted by Hal
    Any study worth publishing is worth publishing in a good journal. If the study can't stand up to the rigours of a good journal, well...it's almost certainly crap.
    Like I said before, this discussion is going in circles, if you want to refute them, please do. Find them in a journal, and tear them apart, other than that, nothing you have said really holds water until you can provide reasoning for them being 'crap'. Thanks.

  8. So it's up to me to find the articles alluded to and refute them as need be? You must be kidding!

  9. Originally posted by Hal
    So it's up to me to find the articles alluded to and refute them as need be? You must be kidding!
    Hey man, you're the one screaming they are crap, if I didnt believe in them, I wouldnt have posted them. So yes, if you would like to refute them and pick them apart, its your job to come up with the required info. Im not going to post them and then go research to pick them apart, come on now.

  10. Originally posted by YellowJacket


    Hey man, you're the one screaming they are crap, if I didnt believe in them, I wouldnt have posted them. So yes, if you would like to refute them and pick them apart, its your job to come up with the required info. Im not going to post them and then go research to pick them apart, come on now.
    Hal, You are 100% correct. A study done at Harvard by some undergrad can be found at pubmed, even if they were deemed unworthy to be published in a major journal. Unpublished studies, and those with no citation are as worthless as last week's lunch.

    These crap articles are being published here every day; it's time to cease and desist.

  11. Originally posted by John Benz

    Hal, You are 100% correct. A study done at Harvard by some undergrad can be found at pubmed, even if they were deemed unworthy to be published in a major journal. Unpublished studies, and those with no citation are as worthless as last week's lunch.
    Oh, what a surprise


    At least its better than a Testosterone magazine article where references are cited that actually GO AGAINST the point you're trying to prove! LMAO!

  12. Originally posted by YellowJacket


    Oh, what a surprise


    At least its better than a Testosterone magazine article where references are cited that actually GO AGAINST the point you're trying to prove! LMAO!
    At least testerone is a printed magazine and not some amateurish article that never made it anywhere but the pubmed directory.

  13. So Pubmed now processes and submits amateur material? Nice John. Better delete half the boards material, since most of it is a derivitive of Pubmed.

  14. ... why then is there even a Pubmed link down there? let's all use the test rag

  15. Originally posted by YellowJacket
    So Pubmed now processes and submits amateur material? Nice John. Better delete half the boards material, since most of it is a derivitive of Pubmed.
    My thoughts exactly. Unpublished and/or uncited pubmed articles are a joke. Pubmed publishes everything in sight, some good; some junk. Without being published in a journal and cited per source, they are worthless in an argument on any given topic.

  16. Originally posted by John Benz

    My thoughts exactly. Unpublished and/or uncited pubmed articles are a joke. Pubmed publishes everything in sight, some good; some junk. Without being published in a journal and cited per source, they are worthless in an argument on any given topic.

    Well thats news to me, but certainly its better than Testosterone magazine. Like I said before, if the studies are worthless, feel free to rip them apart and refute them with studies (not from Pubmed) that say otherwise, until then, I will continue to hold Pubmed right up there at the top with the golden standards of research.

  17. Originally posted by Biggin
    ... why then is there even a Pubmed link down there? let's all use the test rag
    Pubmed is a good source of information; a tool. They list it all, good and bad; but they can't make the right selections for you. You have to use common sense and wade through the crap, and find the good published articles. Leave those unpublished, uncited ones on the scrap heap.

  18. Originally posted by John Benz

    Pubmed is a good source of information; a tool. They list it all, good and bad; but they can't make the right selections for you. You have to use common sense and wade through the crap, and find the good published articles. Leave those unpublished, uncited ones on the scrap heap.
    This has nothin to do with the glutamine articles/studies right?

    So if they're uncited, that makes them null correct? even if it confirms common knowledge? Even if its done by more then legit universities and institutions? Even if you can read and comprehend the method, materials, results and conclsion and it all matches?

    Riiiiight.

  19. Originally posted by YellowJacket
    Well thats news to me, but certainly its better than Testosterone magazine. Like I said before, if the studies are worthless, feel free to rip them apart and refute them with studies (not from Pubmed) that say otherwise, until then, I will continue to hold Pubmed right up there at the top with the golden standards of research.
    If they are not worthless, cite them and where they were published, please. If not one major journal felt they were golden, neither do I.

  20. I know that this is going to be an excellent debate on the merits of a stated case, right fellas? LOL! Pretty please!

  21. Originally posted by YellowJacket


    This has nothin to do with the glutamine articles/studies right?

    So if they're uncited, that makes them null correct? even if it confirms common knowledge? Even if its done by more then legit universities and institutions? Even if you can read and comprehend the method, materials, results and conclsion and it all matches?

    Riiiiight.
    If they were professionally done and deemed worthy, they would have been printed in a major journal. Every Harvard grad who does one of these studies, does it with the highest aspirations of getting his/her work published. Journals will turn you down if your work is not noteworthy. And if is not, why would I heed advice from someone turned down for publication.

    Read my lips, Pubmed is a directory for every scrap of information. They DO NOT evaluate or determine if it is correct or not! Good stuff in there sure; but a lot of junk as well. Anything uncited and unpublished must be taken with a grain of salt.

  22. Originally posted by John Benz

    If they were professionally done and deemed worthy, they would have been printed in a major journal. Every Harvard grad who does one of these studies, does it with the highest aspirations of getting his/her work published. Journals will turn you down if your work is not noteworthy. And if is not, why would I heed advice from someone turned down for publication.
    Now you're going off in the wild blue. Whats the criteria for getting your studies published? Insufficient data I would assume is one ite on the list of musts, but if you re-read this articles, each are fully detailed. Who knows, no one even knows if they appear in journals or not, for all we know, they could be. Back to my main point, if you feel they're crap and unworthy, feel free to pick them apart, no one thus far has taken up that offer, only giving opinions that it's PROBABLY unworthy, sorry, I just dont see it.

    Read my lips, Pubmed is a directory for every scrap of information. They DO NOT evaluate or determine if it is correct or not! Good stuff in there sure; but a lot of junk as well. Anything uncited and unpublished must be taken with a grain of salt.
    Really cant read your lips as this is the internet, but on a serious note, I dont think its a fair assumption to say because it doesnt include a citation of journal publication that its total trash, and if your only basis for saying its total trash is the lack of journal cited and not content, well then this argument is over because that holds no merit.

  23. I think balance in your approach to pubmed is the key. You cant assume that just becuase its on pubmed that its gospel and equally you cant assume that its not. That's where multiple studies become the key, seeing the study demonstrated more than once, in different circumstances, with the same or similar results.

  24. Originally posted by windwords7
    I think balance in your approach to pubmed is the key. You cant assume that just becuase its on pubmed that its gospel and equally you cant assume that its not. That's where multiple studies become the key, seeing the study demonstrated more than once, in different circumstances, with the same or similar results.

    Oh, stellar point. Thats why I always request multiple studies. You can find 1 study on the effects of dietary **** on muscle growth, but can you find 2? Doubtful. Good point Jake.

  25. Originally posted by YellowJacket
    ....Back to my main point, if you feel they're crap and unworthy, feel free to pick them apart, no one thus far has taken up that offer, only giving opinions that it's PROBABLY unworthy, sorry, I just dont see it.
    I won't pick apart uncited articles, as without citation and publication, it's just someone's opinion, not a reference source. The authors of these uncited and unpublished works have no credibility, even less than the writers of a bodybuilding mag. At least those writers know their subject, and are not delving into whether gluatamine can cure feline aids through intravenous administration or grow new skin on a deformed dog. Sheeeeze, do you even read what you post, or just spit out words to see where they splatter? Please do not keep quoting and posting uncited work. This argument is over. Sorry you can't find any journal publications to back up your articles.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-22-2004, 07:53 PM
  2. In defense of soy
    By ex_banana-eater in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-17-2003, 03:36 AM
  3. Whos in charge of banners?
    By db682 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-13-2003, 01:10 PM
  4. In need of clomid!
    By ttboyy2k in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-04-2003, 12:58 PM
  5. Bulk quantity of Ephedrine
    By NPursuit in forum Supplements
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-08-2003, 07:36 PM
Log in
Log in