Re: Canadian doctors coming to the US

From: George Conklin (nilknoc_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 09/02/04 

Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:57:44 GMT

"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:ch7bd2$4eqk@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <mqEYc.4785$JT3.18@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> George Conklin <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:orac-EF355F.16333529082004@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >> In article <cgt8fn$22fi@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
> >> hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
> >> > In article <orac-A727DC.21270928082004@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> >> > Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:
> >> > >In article <cgra53$4a0m@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
> >> > > hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
> >> > >> In article <41309b16$0$18253$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>,
> >> > >> Lictor <ghostmlNOSPAM-REMOVE@online.fr> wrote:
>
> ....................
>
> > Herman denies that the usual test of statistical significance is a vaid
> >test of how effective medicine is. Thus anything the government posts
would
> >automatically be invalid in his mind. I have never really understood why
he
> >insists that only Bayesian analysis be used, since he has never shown
that
> >the results would be changed if you change the test. Anyway......
>
> A test of statistical significance tests whether the
> observations would be "sufficiently unlikely" if the
> null hypothesis is EXACTLY true, and NOTHING else.
>

   Based on this comment, we could never do any medical research since all
variables cannot be controlled.

   Having said that, self-selection, social class and a whole lot of other
variables have fouled medical findings now for many years. They also ignore
things like stress, since it is not something a BENCH scientist does.

> It does not take into account how effective the
> procedure is under the alternatives, nor the magnitude
> of the effect under the null, and hence does not balance
> the various components of risk. If 50% of the people
> exposed to a disease without treatment died, and 51%
> of 1,000,000 people given a treatment survived, this
> would be HIGHLY significant.

  So? People would see from the figures what the effect was and the risk
too.

If there was a new
> treatment given to 4, and they all survived, this
> would not meet the customary significance level.
> Which treatment would YOU choose?
>
   False choice too Herman. Today we are wondering if common treatments
might make things worse, like HRT.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Canadian doctors coming to the US
    ... >> Herman denies that the usual test of statistical significance is a vaid ... > exposed to a disease without treatment died, ... People would see from the figures what the effect was and the risk ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Canadian doctors coming to the US
    ... >> Herman denies that the usual test of statistical significance is a vaid ... > exposed to a disease without treatment died, ... People would see from the figures what the effect was and the risk ...
    (sci.med)
  • results of its multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled human clinical trial of MP
    ... Statistical significance was not achieved for either of the endpoints, ... prostate cancer among 246 patients with advanced disease. ... to greater risk of developing diseases and who would therefore benefit ... in clinical trials; the risk that clinical trials may not result in ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)