Re: Wing: Descriptive Epidemiology by Any Other Name...

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

> Steve Wing and colleagues have published a reanalysis of TMI health 
> effects data (Wing et al. 1997).  Both the new Wing study and the work 
> of B.L. Cohen (Cohen 1995) are in a category of descriptive 
> epidemiology, as opposed to analytical epidemiology.  

	---I am not sure that my work should be called "epidemiology". It
is a test of a specific theory. Tests of a theory are at the heart of "the
scientific method" and apply rigorously to all of science. The baggage
attached to ecological studies does not apply to, or affect such a test.

> factors.  Neither the Wing TMI study nor Cohen's study are 
> "experiments," but rather compilations and analyses of whatever data are 
> available.

	--I dare say that there was more data collected for my study than
for 99% of Strom's "analytical studies"

> 
> If you are upset by Wing yet celebrate Cohen, I ask that you examine why 
> descriptive studies are compelling in one case and not in the other.

    --Wing is trying to establish a dose-response relationship. My work
does not do this. It simply tests a theory, in accordance with accepted
procedures in all fields of science. If anyone does not understand that
difference, they should at least try to explain why. My impression is that
some people do not know what it means to test a theory in science. It is
completely different than determining a dose-response relationship.

> To 
> me, the bottom line is that neither have data for individuals

	--I have clearly shown that testing a linear- no threshold
theory does not require data for individuals. If Strom disagrees with
these demonstrations, he should say specifically why. I can very easily
explain why data for individuals is needed to determine a dose- response
relationship; why can't he explain why data for individuals is necessary
to test an LNT theory?

> neither 
> has meaningful control for confounders and biases

	--I CAN EASILY SHOW THIS FOR WING'S DATA. Why doesn't someone show
this for my paper. My paper treats over 60 potential confounders, and
analyses numerous potential biases. Why doesn't someone show that this is
not meaningful? Does anyone know an "analytical" study that treats so many
potential confounders and biases.

	Why doesn't Strom or someone else criticize my paper with a
letter-to-the-editor or a rebuttal paper in a scientific journal? Isn't
that the way science is traditionally done? 

 Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu