Caitlin says:
>How large a sample size is that?  What kind of scientific study has been
>done?  Without something concrete, this becomes an opinion that may or may
>*not* be based in fact.  It becomes just more anecdotal data.  Here is
>some more anecdotal data: a friend of my brother's has two 12 year old MF
>fuzzies, neither of which has ever had a major health problem.  The pair
>were bought as kits in late 1987.  They have slowed down quite a bit, but
>they still are alive and well.  Now, I wouldn't for a minute expect that
>my MF ferrets will live to be 12, or never have a health problem.  It's a
>true story, but it doesn't paint an accurate picture, does it?
 
I'd just like to say that I no longer put quite the emphasis on scientific
studies with large statistical databases and all oh so officious.  Many
times this is just a fall back argument to "kick the football" down the
discussion path as it were and the study turns into just smoke and mirrors
to confuse the layman into thinking someone earned their paycheck.  So many
scientific studies say what the people doing them want them to say - you
really start to wonder.  And of course those are the ones that actually end
with a specific conclusion/recommendation as opposed to the ones (usually
Govt) that are never ending and never conclusive (the Air Force doesn't
know 10 years and millions of dollars later if Agent Orange actually hurt
anyone).  Ok so I'm getting cynical.  I'm not saying scientific studies
don't have a place obviously.  I am saying that where there's smoke lots of
times there's a spark.  Ancedotal evidence isn't always to be disgarded.
How many times have people from across the nation, banding together when
no one would listen to their silly layman stories - pushed the scientific
community into investigating something - and lo and behold - there was
something to investigate?
 
Mary in MI
[Posted in FML issue 3040]