Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> The truth myth is highly persistent. We have the Delaney
> Clause, which requires the FDA to ban any additive "which
> has been found to cause cancer in humans or animals".
> Now what does this mean? It is unlikely that anything
> does not affect the cancer rate.
>
> We do not have the truth, and will not get it. That
> point null hypothesis is false. So we need to get off
> the tack that we want to accept if it is true, and
> reject if it is false.
As Tukey has pointed out, the null hypothesis of no effect
is not that we think there is no effect, but we are uncertain
of the direction.
I wish I knew more about Delany and its application.
One problem, pointed out by David Salsburg, is that a
substances that eliminates one of many competing risks
would appear to increase the other risks.
For example, people no longer subject to heart disease
would undoubtedly see an increased incidence of cancer, with all
cause mortality holding steady at 100%.
===========================================================================
This list is open to everyone. Occasionally, less thoughtful
people send inappropriate messages. Please DO NOT COMPLAIN TO
THE POSTMASTER about these messages because the postmaster has no
way of controlling them, and excessive complaints will result in
termination of the list.
For information about this list, including information about the
problem of inappropriate messages and information about how to
unsubscribe, please see the web page at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
===========================================================================
