"Meanwhile, we have one more trick epidemiologists play. And that is not only to skip dose, but to the skip exposure. A model of exposure is substituted for exposure, and it is forgotten the model is a model, that a guess is not the real thing..."
It's a scientific study! It all looks so real! :-)
Models and statistics are great tools, but in the hands of some they're certainly terrible tools of propaganda. Of course you'd have to have some understanding of models and statistics to know that, if only more people did.
Not true David. With modern statistical software anyone can generate models ad nauseam. It's easy...takes no effort. I've seen it hundreds of times. That's part of the problem with soft science "research". They actually believe it means something after all it came from the computer.
Hahaha. Wish it were otherwise David. It's GIGO on steroids. Every year, millions of papers are cranked out (7 million at last count), with many appearing in so-called "medical" journals. Even the editor of Lancet has admitted 90% is wrong. Briggs has it nailed—this is a sad state of affairs. For me, the decline began in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the advent of SPSS for mainframe computers. That software ushered in an era non-thinking research. Just obtain some data, throw it into the computer, and run a thousand statistical tests. It was off to the races, and the pace has only accelerated since.
A glaring example of this intellectual collapse is the Surgeon General's recent claim that "even small amounts of alcohol can cause cancer." That statement is utterly false. The study behind this assertion focused exclusively on people who already had cancer, ignoring the billions of people who consume alcohol without developing cancer. Not one of their "alcohol causing disease rates" is correct as they left out 99.9% of the drinking population. Epidemiologists pull this kind of stunt all the time.
As per your lecture, I’d like to point out the false statements our Surgeon General has made regarding alcohol use and cancer. The "research" he touts as proof is fundamentally flawed. It’s yet another useless meta-analysis—a collection of numerous poorly constructed studies lumped together into one massive kimchi pile, then “analyzed.”
The agenda behind this meta-analysis is clear: to claim that alcohol causes cancer. But there’s a glaring issue: every single study included only subjects who already have cancer. There isn’t a single Y̅ group! Not one of these studies includes a control group of alcohol drinkers without cancer to enable comparisons or even calculate basic probabilities.
The farcicality is astounding - 572 studies combined, and not one manages to represent the billions of alcohol drinkers worldwide who do not have cancer. What about them? How can anyone conclude causation without considering the broader population? It’s deeply concerning that such fundamentally flawed research can be held up as credible.
Exquisitely opaque! My very frustrated High School Algebra teacher would be impressed that I even make an attempt to read your stuff much less actually catch glimpses here and there of what you are talking about! I love it!
Have President Trump, Elon Musk, or Vivek R+8 contacted you yet to head up the Climate $Change Debunking office yet? If not, they are missing a bet!
While you are sleeping among your numbers, equations, variables and stuff...
What if we asked one simple question instead of all this huge effort in the incomprehensible landscape:
Do we know that this (intervention, drug, chemical, measure, whatever) is 100% safe?
You don’t need any clinical studies or years-long super-paid research to answer it.
And then...
If we don’t know this, what are you doing with it? What for? At whose command? At what cost? Who will pay?
College education (even incomplete) is sufficient to handle such challenges.
Common sense works even better.
"Meanwhile, we have one more trick epidemiologists play. And that is not only to skip dose, but to the skip exposure. A model of exposure is substituted for exposure, and it is forgotten the model is a model, that a guess is not the real thing..."
It's a scientific study! It all looks so real! :-)
Models and statistics are great tools, but in the hands of some they're certainly terrible tools of propaganda. Of course you'd have to have some understanding of models and statistics to know that, if only more people did.
Not true David. With modern statistical software anyone can generate models ad nauseam. It's easy...takes no effort. I've seen it hundreds of times. That's part of the problem with soft science "research". They actually believe it means something after all it came from the computer.
This is a fact.
Damm, you're right. Should have realized that.
Hahaha. Wish it were otherwise David. It's GIGO on steroids. Every year, millions of papers are cranked out (7 million at last count), with many appearing in so-called "medical" journals. Even the editor of Lancet has admitted 90% is wrong. Briggs has it nailed—this is a sad state of affairs. For me, the decline began in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the advent of SPSS for mainframe computers. That software ushered in an era non-thinking research. Just obtain some data, throw it into the computer, and run a thousand statistical tests. It was off to the races, and the pace has only accelerated since.
A glaring example of this intellectual collapse is the Surgeon General's recent claim that "even small amounts of alcohol can cause cancer." That statement is utterly false. The study behind this assertion focused exclusively on people who already had cancer, ignoring the billions of people who consume alcohol without developing cancer. Not one of their "alcohol causing disease rates" is correct as they left out 99.9% of the drinking population. Epidemiologists pull this kind of stunt all the time.
I'll take your word for it :)
William,
As per your lecture, I’d like to point out the false statements our Surgeon General has made regarding alcohol use and cancer. The "research" he touts as proof is fundamentally flawed. It’s yet another useless meta-analysis—a collection of numerous poorly constructed studies lumped together into one massive kimchi pile, then “analyzed.”
The agenda behind this meta-analysis is clear: to claim that alcohol causes cancer. But there’s a glaring issue: every single study included only subjects who already have cancer. There isn’t a single Y̅ group! Not one of these studies includes a control group of alcohol drinkers without cancer to enable comparisons or even calculate basic probabilities.
The farcicality is astounding - 572 studies combined, and not one manages to represent the billions of alcohol drinkers worldwide who do not have cancer. What about them? How can anyone conclude causation without considering the broader population? It’s deeply concerning that such fundamentally flawed research can be held up as credible.
Alcohol causes cancer since 2021. Assuming anything else is conspiracy theory or misinformation.
I've only just started looking at it, and all I see so far is pointing to other "meta analyses".
Exquisitely opaque! My very frustrated High School Algebra teacher would be impressed that I even make an attempt to read your stuff much less actually catch glimpses here and there of what you are talking about! I love it!
Have President Trump, Elon Musk, or Vivek R+8 contacted you yet to head up the Climate $Change Debunking office yet? If not, they are missing a bet!
I think I'm in the Do Not Contact list.