Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 30: Line 30:     
::: That makes more sense. However, the point still remains (and it's not just here, it's generally in reporting of medical research). Whenever anyone says there is an incresed risk of X, if X is very low probability, then the incresed risk is negligible. It only matters if the original risk is significant, and the increase is significant. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::: That makes more sense. However, the point still remains (and it's not just here, it's generally in reporting of medical research). Whenever anyone says there is an incresed risk of X, if X is very low probability, then the incresed risk is negligible. It only matters if the original risk is significant, and the increase is significant. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: Thanks, Murray, your comments are enlightening.  Catwatcher, realize that I'm quoting from the study and it is the fault of the authors for downplaying that fact and not explaining it better.  But as Murray shows, these are significant percentages, not the unimportant ones that you suggest might be the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    
== Opinions in article ==
 
== Opinions in article ==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,425

edits

Navigation menu