Why are real world examples "counterproductive"? Do you not see that some people are healed by this?
What is hard to understand about real world people healing?
So because in a study of eg 200 people 170 don't improve at all but 30 do this now obviously means that on average the thing studied doesn't work: so the study concludes "X doesn't work" even thought 30 people got completely cured.
So you'd now prefer for no-one to get cured because "on average" treatment X doesn't work. Perhaps your reasoning is not productive?
It's really simple: these things work for SOME people: should they not have tried this and instead remain ill?
A human life is not the average + confidence interval in a study: humans are different, an individual is a VERY REAL N=1, not "the average study participant".
What is hard to understand about real world people healing?
So because in a study of eg 200 people 170 don't improve at all but 30 do this now obviously means that on average the thing studied doesn't work: so the study concludes "X doesn't work" even thought 30 people got completely cured.
So you'd now prefer for no-one to get cured because "on average" treatment X doesn't work. Perhaps your reasoning is not productive?
It's really simple: these things work for SOME people: should they not have tried this and instead remain ill?
A human life is not the average + confidence interval in a study: humans are different, an individual is a VERY REAL N=1, not "the average study participant".