Not exact matches
Regarding the short - term animal feeding
study, Konrad wrote: «Our rat - feeding
study was comprehensive and statistically
valid; a panel of experts reviewed the
study and unanimously agreed that soy leghemoglobin is safe.»
Detailed data
regarding breastfeeding exposure and adequate control for confounding factors are necessary for
valid estimates of the relationship between breastfeeding and later intelligence, but no
study to date has fulfilled these requirements.
Regarding the China
Study, all books and approaches have
valid criticisms against them from somewhere.
In addition to these four state - based
studies of voucher program impacts on test scores, some recent
studies do show positive effects on graduation rates, parent satisfaction, community college enrollment, and other nonachievement - based outcomes, but it is unclear if these outcomes are lasting and
valid.23 For example, research shows that nationally, graduation rates for students in public schools and peers participating in voucher programs equalize after adjusting for extended graduation rates.24 Some critics suggest that private schools may graduate students who have not successfully completed the full program.25 Also, in
regard to parent satisfaction, while some
studies do show greater satisfaction among parents whose children participate in voucher programs, the most recent evaluation of the D.C. voucher program shows that any increase in parent or student school satisfaction is not statistically significant.26
And all the old
studies based on that data can also no longer be
regarded as
valid.
Both authors even admitted that their reconstructions aren't statistically
valid (and that was kind of their point...) and McIntyre, at least, has stated that he
regards many
studies since then the same way he does the original 1998 paper because they basically use the same datasets and analysis (And I should add that he seems less opposed to the more recent
studies, especially those that don't use data he finds suspicious...) They've stated their a priori reasons why they don't like the data they don't like.
The CO2 issue hopefully will remain an allowable scientific debate, but I do feel that there have been multiple
valid scientific
studies with
regard to the harmful effects of nitrious oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury and particulates.