We are grateful that Dr. Schor has taken the time to read our article and comment upon a reference within it. We welcome the discussion and are glad it is taking place. We have no quarrel with the probabilistic arguments referenced by Dr. Schor in his comment, which are put forward by Senn.1 As we understand it, a main point of those arguments is that the process of analysis in RCTs produces meaningful intervals around the point estimate that need to be used to interpret estimates correctly and that the uncertainty captured within those confidence intervals is expected to be larger with any variance caused by imbalance.
Where are your Clinical Trials?
It has proven to be difficult, if not impossible, to proceed to full-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for most of the natural methods that cannot be patented or otherwise monopolized.










0 Comments