[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/