"Overmatching" is an Oxymoron. DBPC May Force LNT Out

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

Bill, ANS and HPs

"Overmatching" is an oxymoron - for definitive study or clinical trial, such

as Cameron or I would propose. Double-blind,  neither subject or investigator

even knows who are the controls.



Even with Double Blind, Placebo Control (DBPC), application must be only to

1, like population (not your 1% outlier Iowa),

2, like sub-population (only ever-smoking women over 50 have more CV risk with

Prempro, they will find),

3 like individual (allergy, disease, etc make medicine both art and science).



The Prof. Field referenced by Am Cancer Soc for "Radon Causes Cancer", could

help prove whether or not, "Radon at 2-3pCi/L, 74-111Bq(m-3), in living area,

is associated with less c-reactive protein, more T cells, less lung cancer

and/or greater longevity than when less than 1pCi/L"



The more "multivariate" the more probibility of error. I won't trust

statistical correction

for smoking, a factor 10x the one in question, when we can both study

non-smokers with lung cancer (few as they are) and placebo control study

(difficult as it is).

The Am Cancer Soc  applies 1% outlier Iowa data to the 99%, although it

conflicts with animal and ecologic results.



LNT must be dumped, says the precautionary principle, if we prove that BENEFIT

from low dose radiation is being withheld.



Howard Long



epirad@mchsi.com wrote:



> Howard,

>

> Please read the study Mr. Muckerheide posted concerning

> the problems with over matching in a case-control study.

>

> Howard, it is really not my position to accept the

> ethics, that would be up to the Human Subjects Internal

> Review Board at the facility where such a study would be

> performed.  I would not have to sign on for the study to

> take place.  It may be helpful to identify the rate

> limiting steps that prevent the funding of such a

> study.

>

> My criticism of your proposal is more a matter of

> reality.  It would be impossible to perform a placebo

> controlled study of radon in the general population.

>

> The multivariate analyses performed in case-control

> studies has tremendous power to adjust for smoking and

> other potential confounders since data is collected at

> the level of an individual.

>

> Bill

> > Bill, Bernie, rad scientists and HPs,

> > Radon, like all other MEDICINES, must be tested with maximum matching

> > possible (placebo-controlled studies, double blinded), to definitively

> > identify most beneficial dosage, frequency of bad results (unusual

> > sensitivity), etc.

> >

> > Why does Field refuse to accept the ethics of such a study? In Iowa,

> >  37% smoking "matched controls" (for 87% smoking lung cancer cases),

> > elicits incredulity about the validity of  "statistical correction".

> > True controls must be identical to cases in everything except the

> > chemical being tested, even to placebo effect (usually 30%).

> >

> > Cohen is correct here. Field refuses for radon, a test required of every

> > other medicine.

> >

> > Howard Long



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

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/