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

Re: The Great Debate Could be Over!



Thank you Gary. 

> 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/

> 



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

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/