Re: Medical Research


"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:QM%9g.973761$xm3.290832@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0AW9g.4721$u4.672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e48jb2$1cj8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Statistical significance says absolutely nothing about the
magnitude of the effect, nor does its lack.

Whether a treatment is good is not changed by collecting
data, and intelligent decision making will cause the use of
many treatments before that much information is present.

Suppose you had a disease which was about 50% lethal, and
you gave a million people each a placebo or a treatment.
Suppose the difference of the survival rates was 1% in
favor of the treatment. That is extremely significant, so
much so that one could say it was proved that the treatment
had an effect. I suggest that an experimental treatment
which has cured three out of three is a better bet,
although this is not statistically significant.

Well, Herman, that is just what Skeptic did to me. He sent me to look
at
a study with a lot of faults

Allow me correct you.

YOU sent ME to that study. However, you sent me their OLD DATA. I merely
gave you the updated data to the study you referred me to.

But what Herman stated was true of both articles.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Medical Research
    ... Whether a treatment is good is not changed by collecting ... although this is not statistically significant. ...
    (talk.politics.medicine)
  • Re: Rainbow of Lights [Was: Rainbow of Lists]
    ... When applying this treatment to a spammer who is collecting and ... selling mortgage leads, I infer that it's appropriate to play some ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Medical Research
    ... you gave a million people each a placebo or a treatment. ... Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University ...
    (talk.politics.medicine)