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. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
