The Lancet said ....
You'd do better subscribing to the The Sun. The Lancet is full to overflowing with medical failures and politically correct nutters.
Any resemblance their so called studies have with scientific integrity is purely co-incidental.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Lies, damn lies and statistics
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Lies, damn lies and statistics"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostCommenting?
I thought that presenting was merely that - oh, I might have made an observation regarding that last paragraph.
I'll leave commenting to the more mouthy members of the congregation
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shaunbhoy View PostI love it when dimwitted laborious plodders that take years to master relatively basic concepts, get on their soapbox and lecture others that are clearly light years ahead of them intellectually.
HTH but IDI
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shaunbhoy View PostI love it when dimwitted laborious plodders that take years to master relatively basic concepts, get on their soapbox and lecture others that are clearly light years ahead of them intellectually.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sasguru View Post
I love it when journalists and banjo-strummers assume (in true CUK fashion) that they can comment on a discipline on which they have not spent the requisite number of years to master.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by minestrone View PostDon't assume medical journals are always correct. As Milgram shown people's susceptibility increased when they were told (incorrectly) the tester was a doctor.
Doctors can be notoriously innumerate and unscientific, since their mathematical (and hence logical) training is trivial, as opposed to the ability to master loads of facts.
Luckily since stats is really applied maths, it is easy to check if a methodology is sound or not, since, unlike what most people believe, there are sound foundations for it.
The "Lies... blah... blah .and Statistics" quote is just a cliche, originated by Mark Twain, I believe.
Leave a comment:
-
The Lancet said following the judgment of the General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practise panel last Thursday it had become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield and others were incorrect.
The panel made a number of criticisms of Dr Wakefield, including that he was misleading and irresponsible in the way he described the study.
The research sparked a massive drop in the number of children given the triple jab for measles, mumps and rubella.
The editors of the Lancet said it had become clear that several elements of the paper were incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.
''In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were 'consecutively referred' and that investigations were 'approved' by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.''
Leave a comment:
-
Commenting?
I thought that presenting was merely that - oh, I might have made an observation regarding that last paragraph.
I'll leave commenting to the more mouthy members of the congregation
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NickFitz View PostUnfortunately, El Reg has completely misinterpreted the figures they quote: they paraphrase "If we assume causality, among men and women, 10% (95% confidence interval 7 to 13%) and 3% (1 to 5%) of the incidence of total cancer was attributable to former and current alcohol consumption in the selected European countries" which is in the abstract. If you read the full paper, you find that this is summarising the findings whose presentation begins: "If we assume causality, these estimates would translate into 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 13%) of total cancer in men (table 3)⇓ and 3.0% (1% to 5%) of total cancer in women (table 4)⇓ being attributable to alcohol consumption in these selected European countries" which makes it clear that the figures of 10% and 3% refer to the distinction between men and women, not the distinction between former and current alcohol use.
I love it when journalists and banjo-strummers assume (in true CUK fashion) that they can comment on a discipline on which they have not spent the requisite number of years to master.
The study is pretty thorough and a brief perusal shows no obvious fault with the methodology.
It is pretty clear that there is a strong link between some cancers and excessive alcohol consumption.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NickFitz View PostUnfortunately, El Reg has completely misinterpreted the figures they quote: they paraphrase "If we assume causality, among men and women, 10% (95% confidence interval 7 to 13%) and 3% (1 to 5%) of the incidence of total cancer was attributable to former and current alcohol consumption in the selected European countries" which is in the abstract. If you read the full paper, you find that this is summarising the findings whose presentation begins: "If we assume causality, these estimates would translate into 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 13%) of total cancer in men (table 3)⇓ and 3.0% (1% to 5%) of total cancer in women (table 4)⇓ being attributable to alcohol consumption in these selected European countries" which makes it clear that the figures of 10% and 3% refer to the distinction between men and women, not the distinction between former and current alcohol use.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostFrom the Daily mash article linked...
Meanwhile, Brubaker admitted that bringing up the subject of drinking and cancer on a Friday, during a spell of warm, sunny weather, does make him seem like the sort of utterly miserable ****er who deserves to be eaten by a crocodile.
Leave a comment:
-
Unfortunately, El Reg has completely misinterpreted the figures they quote: they paraphrase "If we assume causality, among men and women, 10% (95% confidence interval 7 to 13%) and 3% (1 to 5%) of the incidence of total cancer was attributable to former and current alcohol consumption in the selected European countries" which is in the abstract. If you read the full paper, you find that this is summarising the findings whose presentation begins: "If we assume causality, these estimates would translate into 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 13%) of total cancer in men (table 3)⇓ and 3.0% (1% to 5%) of total cancer in women (table 4)⇓ being attributable to alcohol consumption in these selected European countries" which makes it clear that the figures of 10% and 3% refer to the distinction between men and women, not the distinction between former and current alcohol use.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cojak View Post
From the Daily mash article linked...
'The tulipfaced King of the Monkeymen'.
Leave a comment:
-
Lies, damn lies and statistics
Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: