[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Objectivity



You express very well what I've been trying to say, but haven't quite.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Let's look at the real problems, for a change.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:



> Howard,

> I do not think the word is dismissed, as much as evaluated.  I am not an

> epidemiologist, so I will not claim to know all of the work that goes into

> the analysis of a study.  I think that are the issues, not that there is a

> lot of data.  There are people who are trained and get paid to do studies

> and analyze data.  And I am sure that new studies are performed as better

> data arises.  Dr. Cohen's studies were done years ago.  Why should new

> studies using new data not be done?  Is it wrong because different answers

> are obtained?

>

> What I see here is not a discussion of scientific merit, but political

> posturing by a few.  When you question the use of statistical adjustments,

> it is because it is poor epidemiological work or its use leads to a result

> you do not agree with?  It is possible you are too biased.

>

> If Dr. Cohen's work is so profound, why does he need an "attention getter?"

>

> And Jim, do not bombard me with abstracts and bombastic rhetoric.

>

> -- John

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> 3050 Traymore Lane

> Bowie, MD  20715-2024

>

> E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net

> [mailto:hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:38 PM

> To: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)

> Cc: RadSafe

> Subject: Re: Objectivity

>

> John,

> I like and support your measured comments below.

> What I do not like is the dismissal by the American Cancer Association and

> some LNT regulators of Cohen's epic demonstration, which has decisive error

> bar patterns even with smoking and other confounders compared with data -

> not statistical "adjustment", as Field's limited numbers required.

>

> Cohen's "Grandstanding" is a brilliant attention-getter for work that

> deserves the attention -, and well-earned respect.

> . . .

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/