I would like to point out the mistakes made by Gilbert in his post below. --- On Tue, 10/5/10, Gilbert Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for sending us this article from JAMA (Journal > of the American Medical Association). I perused it. As many know, >America > is big into RCTs (Randomized Clinical Trials). So it is >interesting that the > authors of this study which critically analysis RCTs >are from UK (Oxford) > and France (Paris). >
This is misleading. First, RCT is supposed to stand for Randomized Controlled Trial, not Randomized Clinical Trial. Second, these trials are the gold standard of clinical research to determine efficacy of treatments. Every advanced country is big into them, including U.K. and France, not just the U.S. > >The paper essentially is a rebuke of the medical-scientific establishment >>(including medical statisticians) in the USA and elsewhere. > The paper is not a rebuke of medical statisticians at all. It merely criticizes how statistically non-significant results are interpreted, reported or downplayed in the abstract and/or main text by the principal author(s) or in media reports by journalists. It does not fault the statistics or the validity of the raw data. > >Now you claim Dr. Hyman, "has misrepresented many methodological and >>technical aspects of the JAMA paper in his article. In fact, he has >resorted >to more spin than the targets of the paper." So here is another >victim of >your smear. > The charge of smear is bogus, as usual. As a matter of fact, I have provided a point by point justification for my above-quoted assertions. Here is the link to that Goanet post: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-October/200051.html Now if you want to see a rather foolish and transparent example of a cheap smear, please read the drivel below. Please note that the royal "we" is invoked to throw mud at me, and to fool readers who have no clue what he is talking about, hoping that they are stupid enough to take him by his word, without noticing that he is absolutely unable to provide any justifications for any of his idle assertions. In any case, it would be interesting to read what is written in the analysis of the paper that is promised to be delivered. Cheers, Santosh --- On Tue, 10/5/10, Gilbert Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Of late, I have noticed that quite a few of us have been > checking your web-link > references in your responses. Some have replied that the > links are unconnected > to the topic being discussed or that your quotes or > interpretation of the links > are incorrect. You have corrected yourself, in some posts. > Frankly we have no > time to chase your bogus "Copy and Paste" references. You > got to do your own > home-work more diligently before wasting our time. And as > far as the cancer > experts you quote as personal communication, I can give > them my opinion if they > post their views directly on Goanet instead of having you > misrepresent their > views as well. > > > Analysis of JAMA paper to follow. > Regards, GL >
