Quote:
Originally Posted by reticguy76
i understand, however, that is a small group of researchers evaluating, small numbers of snakes. i think its my nature (and from my field of work) to be precise. i dont like and agree with minimum researchers and research done and words/phrases used like, "it seems", "probably", etc. but, of course, that is getting into matter of perception and personal views on the subject.
i like and prefer researcers to use words like, "we know", "without a doubt", etc. there are so many things out there (medically), aside from ibd, that are probably true and accurate with different diseases and treatments, that research for, uses words like, "we believe", "we think", "seems like", etc, that i tend to leave open.
obviously there are many diseases, treatments, etc in world that are not definite and probably never will be, since research on some of those things have been goin on for decades, but the way my mind works, unless it is proven beyond a doubt and recorded by mulitple researchers that all come to the same findings, everything is open
|
And it is also my own nature to be precise also. I am a laboratory animal technician. It is the same thing you do, only I work in a research setting. It is in my nature to know how diseases work and how diseases manifest themselves in animals, but first and foremost, I know RESEARCH.
The paper we have to go on was written based on experiences with the virus. Those experiences are fact.
Do not forget that Dr. Jacobson has MANY other vets forward their cases to him! Is that not considered a collective of fact to you?
All this talk of how we percieve things is irrelevent to this thread, though. I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make. "Fact" is a strong word for something studied so little, but you have to take into account that Dr. Jacobson's paper is a collective of possibly hundreds or thousands of different cases presented to him. This is how the disease is
currently known to manifest itself.