Please to forgive der meine Mnglisch.

www.naturesmax.co.uk/catalog/Living-Food-Love-Bites-200g-tub-p-16661.html

Just remember though, sex makes kittens cry and that just isn’t nice.

www.b3tards.com/u/50ea193c5fcac48cfdc2/stampoutsecs2.jpg

This includes having 4 seperate physical routes for the cables. Setting up the software and hardware so even if a mix of hardware units & other cable routes go out it’ll find a way to route the calls & traffic. Can you imagine the chaos if the south east england air traffic control goes down?

It does seem counter-intuitive that medical practitioners and researchers are prepared to accept a 1 in 20 chance of their result being a “fluke” and thus their process not actually working when deployed, when dealing with matters of health and wellbeing; whilst my industry sees the need to achieve no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities (the mis-named “Six Sigma” creed) when designing relatively mundane (non-safety critical) aspects of a common consumer product.

One answer may be that failures are obvious in engineering (my car won’t start, the AC doesn’t work …) whilst the complexities of the human organism and psyche can obscure that treatments aren’t actually doing what they were intended to do.

I searched for patents registered to mckeith, but the only ones are related to stud walls by a Mr Stuart McKeith.

Happy to search for other relevant company names if you can suggest them

Also, when the operators get their hands on the equipment and manage to produce over the design capacity, they get to feel smug – because they can use the equipment better than it was designed for. They often don’t understand that they’re pushing the safety margin, but will give you more work in the future.

We often get more work on sites which have gone bang (Buncefield, Texas City, etc.)

Just found this on the BBC site: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6179374.stm

One quote from the CAM apologist is that Professor Waxman’s opinion is interesting, but is a personal one. Pulling together other Bad Science articles; I wonder if a Court of Law would consider Professor Waxman’s opinion as ‘personal’ or ‘expert’?

This is the difference between engineering and medicine… we don;t have to rely on patients subjective opinions of how much better they feel etc… with us it either works or it doesn’t or in your case explodes or doesn’t…. might i recommend 20%?

Also since to get a patent, the subject of the patent must be “new “or a new use, evidence of traditional usage would count as prior art and would not be patentable.

Anyone know if there is a legal definition of patent pending, and if your product or idea is found not to be patentable, you can no longer cite Patent Pending on the blurb?

We design all our equipment very carefully, and then add 10%.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6166324.stm

Like the website says:
“Welcome to the new Dr Gillian McKeith Official Website – Empowering people to improve their lives through information, food and lifestyle”

Information, right. Thanks a lot.

“It’s obvious that the EU bureaucrats are clearly concerned that people in the UK are having too much good sex.”

Snarl. Gnash.

CD

‘About Wild Pink Yam and Horny Goat Weed Supplements

Due to the new EU licensing laws regarding herbal products, and after extensive consultation with the MHRA, McKeith Research Ltd has withdrawn two supplement products – Wild Pink Yam and Horny Goat Weed Capsules. The new EU ruling affects a wide range of herbal products currently on sale in the UK, and McKeith Research Ltd is willing to comply with all new regulations as they work closely with the MHRA to ensure that products comply with the new licensing specifications.’

Love the ‘extensive consultation’. Bastards.

CD

In psychology, the usual level is 0.05, though obviously a lower alpha level is all to the good.

On a slightly different tack – post 3 and 12 re “approaching statistical significance”. This has always bothered me. I mean, the idea that P=0.049 (ie a 1 in 20.4 chance the result is a fluke) is statistically significant, but a P=0.051 (ie a 1 in 19.6 it’s a fluke) is not significant – as though significance were an absolute and we could dichotomise results (not sureabout the English there). Certainly Big Pharma has not been too scrupulous about exploiting this idea (and type II error, and the difference between clinical significance and statistical significance, and ….).

I might be willing to accept a treatment based on P=0.06 or even greater, if there was no alternative treatment, the consequences of no treatment were awful and the cost (financial, risk and severity of harms, etc) was low. But I might not accept treatment at P=0.01 if the benefits were small and the cost was very high.

Just for interest, in medicine P=0.05 is the conventional limit, but what about other sciences? What sort of P values are conventional as significant in, say, engineering, or chemistry, etc?

Cheers

“A spokesman for the MHRA said that “there is no evidence of the products’ efficacy for the medicinal purpose for which they were advertised. The company may reapply for a medicine licence for these products but will have to prove that they conform to standards in safety, quality and efficacy.””

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2462980,00.html

Maybe the traditional herbal medicines scheme won’t apply after all.