Herman Rubin wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Herman Rubin wrote: > > >> Here is an extreme version of a bad example; there is a > >> disease which is 50% lethal. The old treatment has been > >> given to 1,000,000 people and 510,000 have survived. > >> There is a new treatment which has been given to 3 people, > >> and all have survived. You find you have the disease; > >> which treatment will you take? > > >> The first has a very small p-value; it is about 20 > >> sigma out. The second has a probability of 1/8 of > >> occurring by chance if the treatment does nothing. > > >Wouldn't it depend on the survival rate without treatment? With > >advanced pancreatic cancer, for example, the second has a probability of > >0 if the treatment does nothing. > > I specifically stated that the survival rate without > treatment is .5. The old highly significant treatment > raises it to .51, within sampling error.
You're right. I see I missed it. Sorry. A fascinating question that many IRBs and participants in clinical trials face daily--foregoing standard treatment to avail one's self of a "promising" new treatment. . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
