|
|
Post by tomtabb on Oct 26, 2018 9:23:35 GMT -5
What is the status of the long term safety study?
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Oct 26, 2018 9:25:32 GMT -5
What we do know is that =>50% of the SoC governing body must agree with one another before a change to the Living SoC is made.
Herein lies both the problem and the barrier: opinion
Demonstrable facts mean nothing because ADA regulates the SoC with opinion.
50% of personal opinion must agree before a change is made in the Living SoC.
Complete lunacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Oct 26, 2018 10:42:12 GMT -5
What we do know is that =>50% of the SoC governing body must agree with one another before a change to the Living SoC is made. Herein lies both the problem and the barrier: opinion Demonstrable facts mean nothing because ADA regulates the SoC with opinion. 50% of personal opinion must agree before a change is made in the Living SoC. Complete lunacy. Isn't that true everywhere? A person weighs all the available evidence, forms a personal opinion, and votes based on that opinion. Jury trials spring to mind as an obvious example. In the case of the ADA and the SOC they formalize the process to the point of even telling you which evidence they attach the most weight to in forming that opinion. Using the jury trial example does introduce the interesting case where the jury votes in clear opposition to the evidence (juries in the UK have a habit of not convicting journalists who break the Official Secrets Act regardless of how blatant the journalist was). The analogy would be doctors deciding to change the way they treat diabetes regardless of the guidance in the SOC - their personal opinion of what is correct overriding the official version. |
|
|
|
Post by mango on Oct 26, 2018 11:58:31 GMT -5
What we do know is that =>50% of the SoC governing body must agree with one another before a change to the Living SoC is made. Herein lies both the problem and the barrier: opinion Demonstrable facts mean nothing because ADA regulates the SoC with opinion. 50% of personal opinion must agree before a change is made in the Living SoC. Complete lunacy. Isn't that true everywhere? A person weighs all the available evidence, forms a personal opinion, and votes based on that opinion. Jury trials spring to mind as an obvious example. In the case of the ADA and the SOC they formalize the process to the point of even telling you which evidence they attach the most weight to in forming that opinion. Using the jury trial example does introduce the interesting case where the jury votes in clear opposition to the evidence (juries in the UK have a habit of not convicting journalists who break the Official Secrets Act regardless of how blatant the journalist was). The analogy would be doctors deciding to change the way they treat diabetes regardless of the guidance in the SOC - their personal opinion of what is correct overriding the official version. Yeah aged I underdstand what you're saying there, and I totally agree w/ you about needing to evaluate all available evidence...I'm talking about demonstrable facts proven with evidence. These scientific facts about Afrezza are veiled by opinion. Have you read the SoC for T2D? Where is the truth about Afrezza? It is hardly even mentioned, really is treated by the authors as non-existent. A Jury may vote contrary to presented evidence because evidence is not fact. We have scientific facts with Afrezza, and of which have been verified repeatedly by observation and measurement. In science, eye witness testimony is the least credible form of evidence and in court it is the highest |
|
