The Great Debate Could be Over!

["Gary Howard" <radiation@webmail.co.za>]

Dr. Field,



I applaud your willingness to end this debate by putting it the hands

of others.  I also thank you for your rapid answer to my question

(which you answered in the affirmative) whether or not you would

accept NCRPs position as to whether limitations with Dr. Cohen's

smoking data could explain his findings. I have been told by the NCRP

that the NCRP committee reviewing Dr. Cohen's work includes a

theoretical physicist.



Dr. Cohen for some reason has ignored my simple question I posed to

both you and him.  Dr. Cohen - If you want a theoretical physicist,

why not accept the opinion of the NCRP Review Committee which includes

very qualified members (including a physicist) who are being

compensated to review your work?



After all, you were the one formally requested NCRP to review your

work.



I can not understand why Dr. Cohen would ask in the first place for a

theoretical physicsist to resolve the question.  That is like asking

an epidemiologist to resolve some disagreement about Quark theory. I

understand physicist like to gravitate toward other physicist like

Newton. But, like van der Waals, one is sometimes forced to mingle

with others outside their tight circles.



Seriously, Dr. Field it appears the very qualified scientist you have

identified below have not previously taken part in this debate (other

then Dr. Colditz) and have offered no opinions on these issues

previously.  Dr. Field, I am somewhat amazed that you graciously

included one of Dr. Cohen's previous co-authors (Dr. Colditz) on his

ecologic studies in your list below.  I think this shows your

willingness to go the extra km to resolve this debate.



Dr. Cohen - TWO QUESTIONS



1) will you accept the NCRPs decision on whether or not limitations of

your smoking data may be the cause of your findings?



2) What theoretical physicist do you know that has experience with

ecologic epidemiology studies?



3) Why are the recommendations below by Dr. Field not acceptable?



Let's end this debate once and for all and get back to the technical

discussions we all want.



Dr. Cohen, you are the one who said if someone makes a plausible

suggestion and you do not agree with it, you will agree to put it in

the hands of others for $2,500.00.  Why back off now?



Gary Howard



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



>If you do not feel it is plausible, which scientists do you recommend

we have

>review whether or not this is a plausible explanation?

>

>We previously pointed out the poor predictive ability of your smoking

data to

>explain lung cancers.  Puskin has further shown your inverse

association is

>also found for other smoking related cancers.  It is pretty clear

that you

>have residual confounding from smoking and the confounding is

magnified by

>factors co-correlated to smoking.

>

>I understand your "treatments", but disagree that you can validly use

>additional faulty summary data to "treat" your existing summary data.

>

>Who do you suggest we ask to resolve whether or not it is plausible

that

>residual confounding from smoking and co-correlated factors are a

likely

>explanation for your findings?

>

>Would you find any of these individuals acceptable???

>

>http://www.iarc.fr/pageroot/UNITS/cvcardis.html

>

>http://www.ieiltd.com/bios.htm#

>

>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/epidemiology/academics/envepi.htm

>

>http://depts.washington.edu/epidem/weiss.htm

>

>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/GrahamColditz.html

>(Your co-author on one of your early papers)

>

>http://www.slu.edu/colleges/sph/centers/prc/Faculty/ross.htm

>

>http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Departments/PageMain.asp?Page=4544&DepartmentI

D=97

>

>http://www.coeh.ucla.edu/morgenstern.html

>

>http://www.ohsu.edu/som-PubHealth/Morton.html



_______________________________________________________________________

LOOK GOOD, FEEL GOOD - WWW.HEALTHIEST.CO.ZA



Cool Connection, Cool Price, Internet Access for R59 monthly @ WebMail

http://www.webmail.co.za/dialup/

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

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/