" 

 ::: If there really is a problem (and I don't think it's as large as you seem to think), then the solution is to attribute it and/or tweak it. Actually following 515 patients for eight years is pretty darn good! Since it happens to be the largest and best study of its type, to the best of my knowledge, then we should use it. It was well-controlled and properly performed using university facilities nad national health care dollars (well, Norwegian kroner ;-). No one has ever questioned the reliability of the study method used, and no one has ever questioned the reliability of the sourcing, TTBOMK. We use the available literature and we don't wait until a study is performed that studies 100,000 patients is done. We use what is published in RS, and this one certainly qualifies. We should just attribute it and possibly tweak the editorial comments that accompany it. Read the sources. I added it originally and have studied it in Norwegian, Danish, and English, including the related research, the leading researchers' reputations and their other research, and the newspaper articles at the time. It all checked out as about as good as it can get. Until we have better, let's be careful. I think you'll find my wording follows the sources pretty exactly without any twisting or bias.   /  "