Re: Cohen's Fallacy and Doll

["Rad health" <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>]

I read that paper and you did not address Doll's or Field's criticisms.  Can 

you not explain it in one paragrapgh here rather than referring to work that 

does not address it.  You ask others to explain your findings, but you pick 

and choose how you want to answer it.  In other words, you do not respond to 

the hard questions.





>From: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>

>Reply-To: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>

>To: Rad health <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>

>CC: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: Re: Cohen's Fallacy and Doll

>Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:38:36 -0500 (EST)

>

>

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Rad health wrote:

>

> > Dr. Cohen,

> >

> > I did not post your response, because it was not responsive to the 

>letter of

> > Darby of Doll.

>

>	--My response was peer reviewed, so the reviewers thought it was

>responsive. Of course letters to the Editor have tight constraints on

>length, which can be somewhat limiting.

>

>   Please do me the favor of responding to this quote from Doll

> > and Darby.  "Professor Cohen states in his letter that his analysis

> > encompasses all of the Doll suggestions'. It is, however, logically

> > impossible for it to have done so using data at the level of counties. 

>This

> > is because the effect of cigarette smoking on the relationship between

> > residential radon and individual lung cancer risk will be determined by 

>the

> > relationship between smoking status and lung cancer among the 

>individuals

> > within each county."

> >

> > Cohen does not have information on the relationship between smoking and 

>lung

> > cancer within counties.  Drs. Field and Smith have been making this same

> > point as Doll and Darby in their Forum paper and subsequent letters, yet

> > Cohen has not responded specifically to this charge.  Dr. Field gave you 

>a

> > way to possibly correct for this problem a few days ago on this list, 

>but

> > you said you preferred to do it your own way, which you haven't.

> >

>	--If you will read my paper on "Treatment of confounding factors

>in an epidemiological study", especially my methods of 'plausibility of

>correlation' and 'stratification', you will understand the answer to your

>question.

>

>

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

>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/

>





_________________________________________________________________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 

http://www.hotmail.com



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

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/