Jerry Dallal wrote:
> 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%.
I would hope that such risks would be measured as probability per unit
time, and so the first-order effects of `we all die' would be removed.
Which still leaves the second-order effects due to the lengthy induction
process of many cancers.
BTW an even greater problem in animal testing seems to be due using
feed-on-demand systems. The little critters are usually bored out of
their minds and overeat, causing a variety of health problems. So any
drug that makes them mildly unwell can easily spoil their appetite --
and make them look healthier.
Peter
===========================================================================
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/
===========================================================================
