Re: New Diabetes Vaccine coming Soon.

ted rosenberg <tedrosenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
ted rosenberg <tedrosenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Susan wrote:

Chris Malcolm has spent a career in academia, both teaching the
scientific method and research design, supervising it, and publishing
his own scientific research.

That's why I found addlepated Ted's statement so hilarious.

Susan

There is NO reason to expect Malcolm to have a CLUE when it comes to
experimental design in Morbidity.

I won't argue with him about robotics (where he CLEARLY is more
knowledgeable then I am), and he should keep his ignorant ass out of
actuarial science or statistical epidemiology
(where he is clueless)..,

I stand by the specific comment I made. You haven't yet offered the
slightest reason for supposing I was wrong, just the usual pile of ad
hominem sneers.

Tell him to ask Gerry Fowkes. I f HE thinks that that press release
proves anything, I'll shut up on that item

I said nothing and implied nothing about the worth of the study. My
point was simply that saying the numbers weren't large enough without
saying why was was meaningless, because the numbers required are
crucially dependent on many other factors. Fifteen people in one study
can establish something more strongly than five thousand in another,
as I'm sure you well know.

I made no claim that the press release did prove anything. It wouldn't
surprise me if it was complete rubbish. All I was criticising was your
stated reason for dismissing it, which was rubbish in the unsupported
form in which you stated it. I guess the fact that attacking a
criticism does not necessarily imply support of the criticised is way
beyond your partisan "logic".

Gee Chris - you defended a piece of unmitigated crap with NO reason
other than "the form in which I stated it"??

I explained what was wrong with the form: you failed to give a reason
for your claim. I'm surprised that you fail to see the point of giving
reasons for claims.

I can't imagine how your
colleagues ever put up with you.

That's how academic criticism works. They have to satisfy me and I
have to satisfy them.

I noticed that you haven't checked with anyone in Scotland who IS
competent to talk about the subject.

The subject is quite simply how many people have to be in a study for
it to be meaningful. It's a rather elementary question in
epidemiological studies which at the low level at which this dispute
is stuck requires no expert consultations.

I suggested the school of Public Health, but if not, how about the Med
Schools Epidemiology department, or, best of all, try
http://www.rss.org.uk/main.asp?page=2238 and get someone thru them.

For questions of statistical significance the best people to ask are
not the epidemiologists but the statisticians; they're the people the
eipdemiologists go to for advice and criticism.

I am not an arrogant twit who would presume to tell YOU about robotics.
Why do you show off your incompetence in fields you are unfamiliar with.?

In this particular very narrow field I have made a few elementary
logical points and you have snorted out a great deal of ad hominem
irrelevance. We haven't yet got near the limits of my competence in
this field.

AND, even in Robotics, would you take the word of a flack that a
breakthrough had been made?

I'd ask the flack (whatever that is) to support its case, just as I
was asking you to support yours.

My wife is a writer, and time and time again, her editor would send her
chasing some medical breakthrough on the basis of a press release.
EVERY time, when she actually interviewed the principal investigators,
they denied that the conclusions in the press release were supported by
the work they had done.

This is supposed to be news to me? It's supposed to be relevant?

--
Chris Malcolm cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Diabetes Vaccine coming Soon.
    ... There is NO reason to expect Malcolm to have a CLUE when it comes to experimental design in Morbidity. ... and he should keep his ignorant ass out of actuarial science or statistical epidemiology ... Schools Epidemiology department, or, best of all, try ... eipdemiologists go to for advice and criticism. ...
    (misc.health.diabetes)
  • Re: The Wintard Preoccupation with Price and Marketshare
    ... "You provided support when Macs were used as the ... is no reason to think even you believe your claims. ... You have claimed to disagree that similarly configured Macs ... When I talked about teaching "on OS X" you insisted I ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
    ... Nobody here has given me a reason to even google their nic. ... Publishing your ideas for criticism is crucial. ... But these are skills. ... With the right books, X minutes, Y learned. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: interesting
    ... Clifford Heath wrote: ... The reason that EE is being hit so ... > When you haven't got a support industry, ... wrt the non-repairability of electronics, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: David Owen
    ... > reasonable thing to support is something in which factor Y is never ... The actual reason was not gerrymandering but polarisation ... In safe seats, there's no power for the voters ...
    (uk.politics.electoral)