Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinecone
As to your question, if every review of products I know about I find major mistakes, who cares if this is the best? It is still not worth the time reading.
|
Given that the only example you are willing to give of where they were "wrong" was actually just something you disagreed with them about rather than any factual error on their part, I think the rest of us will continue to find them a good, reliable source (as long as we remember that they sometimes weigh factors differently than we might).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinecone
The review of protein suppliments, started with the assumption of 3 full servings a day.
And I recall one HIGH level of metal (all metals are toxic to some degree) was taht 3 serviing gave you 15.1 micrograms, and the recommended limit was 15 micrograms per day. Sorry but the analytical limit of accuracy is not anywhere close to call 15.1 significantly higher than 15. In fact, the 90% confidence interval will show that you are not sure it it actually higher or lower than the recommended limit.
|
In other words, they downrated a product you like (or perhaps have a professional relationship with) for going over, even by a relatively insignificant amount which goes away when you apply a margin of error, a set safety threshold and you disagree with them for doing so.
If you want to be taken seriously on this issue, how about some examples of factual mistakes they've made (and which they didn't correct the next issue or on the web site), not just conflicts with your own opinion?