Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 425: Line 425:     
Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant?  If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require?  100x?  There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor.  Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 
Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant?  If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require?  100x?  There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor.  Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study.  You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis.  I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study.  The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number.  This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did.  Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
    
==Confused==
 
==Confused==
953

edits

Navigation menu