🚀 go-pugleaf

The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Andy wrote

>>>>>> The problem with all studies that say that activity X causes a
>>>>>> 240% (or whatever percent) increase in the risk of cancer (or
>>>>>> some other health consequence) is that this  is really useless
>>>>>> information. If the underlying risk is 1 in 100,000 a 240%
>>>>>> increase means that the modified risk is only 2.4 in 100,000, which, 
>>>>>> for all practical purposes, are the same odds.  On the other hand, 
>>>>>> if the underlying odds 1 out of 5, then a 240% increase is really 
>>>>>> significant.

>>>>> Nobody ever teaches doctors about statistics.

>>>> Thats just plain wrong.

>>> Possible alternative explanations:

>>> 1. The budding docs are incapable of learning, only memorizing.

>> Those aint the ones doing that research.

> The docs earn money by doing research.

Not the ones doing that sort of research being discussed.

And the other ones just provide the DATA, not the statistical analysis.

> There is a built-in bias to include marginally-qualified people as 
> research subjects and there is
> a built-in bias to show successful treatment.

Not with the research being discussed.

> When subjective judgments have to be made,

There arent any of those with the research being discussed,
whether the individual has a malignant brain tumor or not.

> money talks.  Prestige talks too.

Those aint the ones that produced those statistics being discussed.

>>> 2. They forget easily.
>>> 3. Their statistics have to agree with the desires of the sponsors.

>> There were no sponsors with that particular research.

> Really?

Yep.

> What do you know about the Swedish National Institute for Working Life, 
> the Dutch Health Council,

It isnt hard to check how they are funded.

> or the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health?

They aint the ones doing the research.

>>> 4.

>> You dont have a clue about the basics.

> Hey, I have a calculator that does standard deviations, I don't need a 
> clue!

You wont get published in the International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health for some reason.