Has a study been done on people MS getting tested for herpes 1 and 2 ?

Phhhhht...Pheromones, like, duh!

so you've "summarized" by leaving out the part that says "savoring and reverse-engineering good prose, and assimilating vast numbers of words, idioms, tropes, and stylistic habits and tricks", and then you proceed to criticize the part that you've chosen?

+troy miller it's usually about the time I show them the Bible can't be used to prove anything, (that deliberate vagueness it's full of works both ways) 

+Jon Eckberg : Any day.  Give or take a million years.

"organisms routinely break these rules" does suggest that the "rules" might be presumptuous.  Remember that 99% of the human genome that was considered to be junk?  

It may be true that there are no limits to human knowledge.  Unfortunately, that applies to arrogance as well.

+Gert Sønderby How good is your wife with statistics? I realized after , If I was right (  One-size-does-not-fit-all ) traditional experiments might not be good enough, to see how and who is benefiting from interventions.

A lack of control against background results is a joke.  But if it helped and harmed different people, it might look averaged out. 

You would need to test sstatisticalcorrelations for change-itself. 

This is a similar problem for antidepressants
( may help a subset population but doesnt beat placebos long-term on a broad population ) 

One way to establish this is,  with re-challenge studies and re-iterative testing on subset populations that show  statistical significant correlations. On a drug you want to show you can turn on and off an effect. 

If done correctly this is a valid way to show a subset can get results that beat placebos. 

I dont know how to apply this idea to Autism-interventions. This seems to be a form of cherry-picking, but seems valid if you can result in a full group that gets results. They you can test for why. 

Its a Complexity-problem.

 I am also wondering what sort of sham treatments it would take  to test  the Acting classes.

In plansa alaturata se poate vedea cum ceea ce vedem direct se afla doar in zona spectrului electromagnetic clasic (gamma-radia). In rest observam efectele miscarilor impuse de undele gigant si subatomice asupra structurilor din spectrul electromagnetic clasic.

Cu alte cuvinte ceea ce vedem pe cer sunt efectele miscarilor undelor gigant, unde similare cu dimensiunile sistemelor solare, galaxiilor si metagalaxiei...

Intelegand acest important aspect al observatiilor directe si indirecte in cosmos, putem intelege mai bine faptul ca spre exemplu galaxiile sunt rodul a unor siruri de unde variabile dimensional A si B in plansa). Aceste siruri sunt alcatuite din unde ce coexista simultan in acelasi spatiu tridimensional pe axa frecventelor si nu pot ocupa acelasi spatiu tridimensional pe axa undelor identice. Cele doua siruri se resping pana la atingere in zona undelor gigant si se atrag, pana la atingere in zona undelor subatomice. Aceste siruri se pot roti unul in jurul celuilalt rezultand o spirala atat in zona axelor de frecventa, cat si in spatiul tridimensional. Astfel observand relatia dintre grupurile spectrale A si B, la nivelul spectrului clasic, vom constata structuri in forma de spirala si goale in centru. Aceasta este imaginea rezultata, asemanatoare cu un vartej de furtuna cu centru gol si linistit!

I hate rats.

+Shad Williams
Exactly. That's why the theory is called "relativity".