[Bored chemist]

How about we start the New Year Looking for Solutions to Real World Problems?

OK
One problem we might hope to solve is that some people do not recognise the difference between anecdotes and properly conducted trials.
We can help solve this problem if you learn that difference.

[SSAMC]

You're nothing more than an Insulting, Pompous ASS,
who doesn't give a S--t about Real World Results.

Please, Stay in your Ivory Tower,
Read your Filtered, Censored "Scientific" papers and
Remain as Angry, As Insulting, As Hostile, and --Most Importantly--
As Uneducated, Inexperienced, &  Blissfully-Ignorant

as you Clearly Enjoy being.

[Bored chemist]

You're nothing more than an Insulting, Pompous ASS,
who doesn't give a S--t about Real World Results.

Please, Stay in your Ivory Tower,
Read your Filtered, Censored "Scientific" papers and
Remain as Angry, As Insulting, As Hostile, and --Most Importantly--
As Uneducated, Inexperienced, &  Blissfully-Ignorant

as you Clearly Enjoy being.

Calling me uneducated, while refusing to learn the difference between a properly conducted trial and an anecdote is ratehr ironic.

Why don't you learn some science?

[SSAMC]

"Calling me uneducated, while refusing to learn the difference between a properly conducted trial and an anecdote is ratehr ironic."

Everyone with a modicum of Intelligence Knows the Difference, Boring.

But everyone Brighter than that Knows:

Real World, IMPRESSIVELY POSITIVE, AND OTHERWISE RARE RESULTS
should never be ignored, berated or shoved under the rug.

They should be Verified, then Attempted to Duplicate.

Saving Legs and Lives is Worth this Effort.

If you were a human being, Boring, you would understand this simple fact.

[Bored chemist]

Real World, IMPRESSIVELY POSITIVE, AND OTHERWISE RARE RESULTS
should never be ignored, berated or shoved under the rug.

You do know that the sort of meta analysis which places like the Cohcrane institute undertake, includes those results too, don't you?

If you were a human being, Boring,

Damn! You rumbled me.
How did you work out that I'm a Martian?

Just kidding- it's just you being wrong again.

Everyone with a modicum of Intelligence Knows the Difference, Boring

You do a poor job of displaying intelligence by getting my name wrong.
It doesn't matter if it's deliberate or not.

[SSAMC]

Only an Internet Troll would consider it
unreasonable, unscientific to talk to actual patients.

Bye, Bye, BORING.

[Bored chemist]

Only an Internet Troll would consider it
unreasonable, unscientific to talk to actual patients.

Was anyone doing that, or is it just some dross yo made up?

[SSAMC]

Personally Talking to Patients would be gathering Anecdotal EVIDENCE, which

you, yourself have REPEATEDLY DEGRADED.

Get a Grip.

[Bored chemist]

Personally Talking to Patients would be gathering Anecdotal EVIDENCE, which

you, yourself have REPEATEDLY DEGRADED.

Get a Grip.

Collecting and collating that data is what a scientist would do.
It's what the meta analysis does.
Do you not realise that?
The thing you get ALL SHOUTY ABOUT is already done.

[SSAMC]

"already done"?

If it were, we'd all be learning how to effectively use Ozone to Improve the Quality of Life,

rather than arrogantly insisting that only The Cockrane Library can be trusted.

Is that who sponsors this site?

[Bored chemist]

If it were, we'd all be learning how to effectively use Ozone to Improve the Quality of Life,

Unless...
it was done and we found that it doesn't really work.
Sure, sometimes "treatment" is followed by improvement, and sometimes it's followed by a worsening of the condition.
And, of course, sometimes improvement happens without ozone. A proper trial lets you find out how often those happen.

If you only listen to anecdotes, you don't get to find that out.

So, you might be advocating a process that's gravely harmful on the basis that "it seemed to work once".

Is that responsible of you?

Is that who sponsors this site?

No.
Learn to read.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/about/our-sponsors

rather than arrogantly insisting that only The Cockrane Library can be trusted.

Nobody said that- it's just trash you made up.
Why do you invent nonsense like that?

[SSAMC]

From the moment I began posting,
YOU began undermining me.

Yet, all I've been saying is Verify Assertions,
Learn how to duplicate results.

You write:

"Unless...
it was done and we found that it doesn't really work."

PROVE IT.

[Bored chemist]

From the moment I began posting,
YOU began undermining me.

That's because you keep making up trash.

"Unless...
it was done and we found that it doesn't really work."

PROVE IT.

I don't have to prove something which is explicitly conditional.

However, here's the proof that the comparison has been made, at least in regard to one condition.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cca/doi/10.1002/cca.1111/full

[SSAMC]

I've made nothing up.
You want my words ignored, but That’s Rich.

I encourage all to open their eyes, ears, minds and seek out everything with positive findings RE Ozone Therapy.  Why?

Because the Touted Benefits Are WORTH it: INEXPENSIVELY, EFFECTIVELY Killing Infections,
while not compromising the system’s organs.

Whereas Boring posts Only to urge readers to feel foolish for just asking about Ozone, even in Dentistry where it is now not uncommon, often relied upon because Ozone INEXPENSIVELY, EFFECTIVELY Kills lifeforms that do not belong in the human body, without the Wear & Tear too often seen with patients whose infections do not retreat.

No, no, no; Boring’s every move has been
to Hurd the Trusting Sheep,

to funnel readers into —at most— reviewing only Status Quo publications, referring to the documents that report positive findings as “cherry-picking”,

Wholly-IGNORANT to the fact that REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS are worthy of ferreting-out, of validating the veracity, of attempting to duplicate the remarkable IMPROVEMENT in the QUALITY of the PATIENTS’ LIVES.

I feel sorry for All who think Real Scientists denounce everything “new”, or
 anything that “fails” to provide benefits 100% of the time,

even in the hands of uneducated, unskilled, or even malicious baboons.

[Bored chemist]

I've made nothing up.

You made up the bit about only the Cochrane institute being trusted.
and you made up this bit
"Only an Internet Troll would consider it
unreasonable, unscientific to talk to actual patients."
because nobody was actually doing or saying that.

Whereas Boring posts Only to urge readers to feel foolish for just asking about Ozone,

No
I'm posting that it's foolish not to look at both sides.
So, once again that's something you made up.
People have looked- they have done meta analyses- those analyses show little if any benefit.

referring to the documents that report positive findings as “cherry-picking”,

No.
I referred to cherry picking as cherry picking.
So, once again that's something you made up.

I feel sorry for All who think Real Scientists denounce everything “new”, or
 anything that “fails” to provide benefits 100% of the time,

Nobody said or did that so...
 once again that's something you made up.

[SSAMC]

Blah, Blah, Blah; Blah, Blah.

Tu m'ennuies et
j'ai terminé.

Au revoir et bonne chance.

[Bored chemist]

Good to see you got bored of saying stuff that's not true.
Don't hurry back.

[Kryptid]

SSAMC, you seem to be overreacting.

Bored Chemist is not trying to suppress anything nor is he saying that studies about the health effects of ozone should not be done. He's merely asserting how a proper scientific trial should be performed. It's something that all forms of medical treatment should go through before being widely applied.