The core problem with examine, in my opinion, is that it embraces the attitudes that:
1. A wide range of subtle personal, emotional and health problems can in principle be solved/mitigated by taking supplements and unregulated drugs.
2. Positive effects from small-group trials are akin to mild recommendations to take a supplement, rather than to attempt to reproduce the effect in a larger trial.
The very premises upon which people base their visits to examine and other sites is flawed. Examine has zero incentive to address or repudiate them.
The success of their business is dependent on there being a perceived efficacy for supplements and unregulated drugs, and the idea that reading online about more varied and obscure supplements will eventually find you the one that fixes your problem. But for a lot of perceived problems, there will simply be no supplement-based solution.
"Raw" data is that which contains the maximum currently feasible total information content. I think it's surprising that feasibility enters into it, but it does.
In analytics, "raw" often means "the unaltered contents of the application database". This is hardly "unprocessed" or "natural", but to alter it ("clean" it) might lose information which turns out to be important later. An analytics person may express exasperation that the application database is so idiosyncratic. If it were up to them, the "raw" data would be cleaner, or more complete, or less noisy.
But the application database is the way it is because it would be infeasible to drastically change it. Certainly nothing can be done for the historical data that's already been collected. Perhaps in the future, data could be collected in a cleaner or less noisy way, the schemas normalized or redesigned, but any proposed changes must compete with the present inertia of the system, and with the need to maintain existing functionality. That is, any such changes must be feasible.
For physical experiments, "raw" data is that produced by sensors that were feasible to construct and operate given available technology and resources at the time. One might imagine that "rawer" data than that might be collected some day in the future. :)
1. A wide range of subtle personal, emotional and health problems can in principle be solved/mitigated by taking supplements and unregulated drugs.
2. Positive effects from small-group trials are akin to mild recommendations to take a supplement, rather than to attempt to reproduce the effect in a larger trial.
The very premises upon which people base their visits to examine and other sites is flawed. Examine has zero incentive to address or repudiate them.
The success of their business is dependent on there being a perceived efficacy for supplements and unregulated drugs, and the idea that reading online about more varied and obscure supplements will eventually find you the one that fixes your problem. But for a lot of perceived problems, there will simply be no supplement-based solution.