I looked at their FAQ and it seems to not be saying anything lol. The figures they do use, like the 90% they attach very general terms to, such as validation testing (what type? how was it done?) and that 90% was averaged over all breeds studied (what was the sample size that was averaged? what was the median percentage?) Not to mention how reliable is it? Needless to say, no matter how valid a test is, if it is not reliable you still have nothing, and vise versa. I think you would have to look at the original study (assuming it is published) to see if it was bunk or not.
__________________  Wend  |