Ecologic Paradoxical Findings

["R. William Field" <bill-field@uiowa.edu>]

>Hi Jim, 
>
>As I previously said, I am more than happy to continue this discussion off
>the listserv. However, it appears you enjoy a public forum. I could write
>pages of responses to your comments.  But, to spare the listserv members,
>I will limit my response to a few short comments.
>
>
>Field originally stated ---- The ecologic study is not more powerful
>because of the non quantifiable biases within the data set, you have no
>idea what types of cross-level biases have been introduced.  
>
>J.M. responded You're right. I have "no idea what types of cross-level
>biases have been introduced" but then there don't seem to be any. What
>"types" do you know about and of what significance (real or potential) to
>the result? Using the words doesn't create it? like Bernie says, identify
>the specific potential bias, and analyze it for significance. If not, it
>doesn't exist, and the straightforward results of fundamental arithmetic
>stand.
>
> 
>Field (latest Response) ------  Jim, that's the point.  In ecologic
>studies, you can not always identify the sources of biases.  The authors in
>the study I referred to below also tried to identify the sources of their
>error and they could not. Fundamental arithmetic has very little to do with
>it.  Because you can not identify it, does not mean it does not exist. You
>apparently believe that all sources of bias can be found in ecologic
>studies and adjusted for.  If that is the case, I challenge you to become
>familiar with the European study below and tell me what the source of error
>is that led to their paradoxical and absurd findings.  
>
>
>Field Stated ---- Dr. Cohen's Study is not the only large ecologic study
>that has found paradoxical findings.  Paradoxical findings have been found
>in other ecologic studies surveying numerous countries.  For example, a
>huge ecologic study in Europe has found that high blood pressure protects
>you from having a stroke.  Obviously this is a ludicrous finding.  But,
>that is what they found using a large ecologic study.  The European study
>used "powerful and advanced statistics" , but still found a paradoxical
>rather non believable finding.
>
>Dr. Cohen has been unable to explain how his ecologic study can produce
>false results.  He asks others to explain his seemingly paradoxical
>findings even offering $5000.00 for such "proof".  Dr. Cohen has stated he
>can explain the false results of ANY other ecologic study (other than his
>own). He has frequently offered in the past to show how ANY other ecologic
>studies can produce false results.  
>
>JM stated --- This isn't Cohen's position as I've interpreted it. He has
>applied all factors to his results that he has been able to contemplate as
>an explanation of how his study can produce false results, plus has
>responded to all, including many ludicrous, "suggestions" to explain why
>his results could be false. On her studies he has essentially said that
>he could apply the same exhaustive methods to explain why they were false
>if they were false. 
>
>
>Field (latest response) - That is what I am asking Dr. Cohen or you to do.
>Please explain the paradoxical ecologic findings published in the study by
>Menotti et al., European Journal of Epidemiology 13: 379-386, 1997.  
>
>Jim and Dr. Cohen, I look forward to seeing your response via personal
>email regarding my request.
>
>
>I thank the members of the listserv for their patience and supportive
>comments.
>
>Best Regards, Bill Field  
>
>
>
>
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>R. William Field, Ph.D.
>Department of Preventive Medicine
>Division of Epidemiology
>N222 Oakdale Hall
>University of Iowa
>
>Iowa City, Iowa 52242
>
>319-335-4413 (work)
>319-335-4747 (fax)
>mailto:bill-field@uiowa.edu
>*******************************
>