On the other hand, it has been questioned whether a Humean position can allow even such a preference criticism on the basis of inconsistency (Broome 1993).
Since the latter part of the twentieth century, it has been questioned whether a diet high in sugars, especially refined sugars, is good for human health.
Additionally it has been questioned whether a HIV-positive status simply serves as a marker for differences in the prevalence of conventional risk factors such as smoking [ 29].
As well, it has been questioned whether a standard survival analysis framework is appropriate if there is an identifiable mixture of "cured" and "non-cured" patients [ 3- 5], for whom there may be distinguishably different factor effects [ 4, 6].
However, recently, it has been questioned whether a standard RCT design is the most appropriate for assessing weight loss interventions (or other lifestyle or policy programs) that are compared to usual care [ 52].
For a long time, it has been questioned whether a genetic etiology (Halal et al. 1978, Findlay et al. 1989, McKenzie and Sillence 1992, Axenovich et al. 2001, Graat et al. 2002) or an environmental etiology (Scheuermann 1920, Sørensen 1964, Lowe 1990) is most important.
First, it must be questioned whether a decade of EGDT has changed our practice to the point that our 'standard' practice has moved away from formulaic approaches, and favors more aggressive volume and vasopressor resuscitation based on physiological principles.
Based on this, it can be questioned whether a respiratory sensation evoked experimentally alters the perception of another provoked sensation.
