Re: Iowa GIGO, not Cohen's "Fallacy"

["Field, R. William" <bill-field@UIOWA.EDU>]

Howard,



It is disruptive enough that I got 6 direct emails per day from "Don" the 

last two weeks alone, and that is not counting the other direct Radsafe 

inspired emails I received.  Now, I see you are continuing your disruptive 

propaganda. If you have scientifically constructed ideas or opinions, I 

would be very willing to discuss them with you.   Unfortunately, I (and 

likely few others) can make little sense out of your postings.  How do you 

have time to make so many postings when seeing patients?  Our anonymous 

"friend" Don said he unsubscribed from the list so who are your postings 

directed at?



Bill Field





At 11:47 AM 01/30/2002 -0800, you wrote:

>Anonymous "Don",

>GIGO! Garbage In, Garbage Out! The best surgeon knows first, when NOT to 

>operate. To operate statistically, to "control" Iowa smoking statistically

>instead of actually for lung cancer, is GIGO.

>32% smokers just cannot match 86% smokers for lung cancer!

>

>As well detailed by Michael Ford here, the best statistical surgery 

>on  moribund Iowa smoking data can give no lasting benefit. By contrast, Cohen

>survived repeated challenges at Doctors for Disaster Preparedness to win 

>the introduction, "The Best Scientific Effort to Disprove His Own Hypothesis"

>You have seen Cohen's patience here.

>

>LNT fits no defensible findings. Iowa's mismatched controls disqualifies 

>it. GIGO!

>

>Howard Long

>

>Rad health wrote:

>

> > Mr. Mohaupt,

> >

> > They adjusted for smoking using a multi variate analyses, that is correct.

> > I believe the sample size in the North American pooling will be sufficient

> > to determine whether or not radon exposure to just never smokers is a risk

> > or not.  My guess is it may be a greater factor since there is no increased

> > mucous secretions from the smoking to attenuate the alpha particles.  The

> > hypotheses the Iowa Study was testing was whether or not prolonged

> > residential radon is a problem in females who have developed lung 

> cancer and

> > have lived in the same home for at least 20 years.  Perhaps they can 

> perform

> > another study on never smokers down the road, but that was not the focus of

> > their study.  I can not convince you of the strenth of multivariate

> > analyses, that is your personal view and I respect that. Most 

> epidemiologist

> > (other than Howard who calls himself an epidemiologist) would disagree.

> > Plus the Iowa inverstigators performed tests for residual confounding and

> > did not find any.

> >

> > The German study was positive regardless of the spin you put on it.

> > Alavanja's study was not of just never smokers, but rather ex smokers 

> and it

> > lacked power.

> >

> > Don



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

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/