Re: Ecologic Studies

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

Dr. Cohen ---

Our response to your non peer reviewed submission has been forwarded to the
journal.    

Bill Field 




At 10:06 AM 3/3/98 -0600, Bernard L Cohen wrote:
>
>> 
>> FIELD RESPONSE ______________________
>> 
>> 
>> Dr. Cohen, I believe several individuals have provided you with very
>> plausible explanations for your findings.
>> 
>> Greenland and Robins (1994)  Invited commentary: ecologic studies - biases,
>> misconceptions, and counterexamples.  Am. J. Epidemiology  139:747-760;
1994.
>
>	-This was long before my paper was published. In my papers, I
>responded in detail to the problems they noted, and they have not replied,
>nor has anyone else. If the problems they point out are effective in
>explaining our discrepancy with linear-no threshold theory, why can't you
>or someone else offer a not implausible explanation for our discrepancy?
>
>> in addition to the article in press which you know about. 
>
>	-The articles in press that I know about are by you and by Lubin.
>I have responded at great length to both of you about 3 months ago,
>showing that your explanations cannot explain our discrepancy. I
>have heard nothing in return from either of you.
>
>
>> I find their explanations very reasonable.
>
>	-Then why not respond to my demonstrations that they are not
>reasonable because they cannot explain, or substantially reduce, our
>discrepancy?
>
>> 
>Bernard L. Cohen
>Physics Dept.
>University of Pittsburgh
>Pittsburgh, PA 15260
>Tel: (412)624-9245
>Fax: (412)624-9163
>e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu
>
>