In a message dated 10/8/00 8:41:11 PM EST, [email protected] writes: << One circumstance you may find of interest is that.......from among the pronounced majority of subjects observed, pathogenic afflictions among those individuals receiving "prophylactic"----or greater----dosages of CS.....was (on average) less than 10% of that occurring among the non-treated controls. These data included a number of twin siblings from among several different mammal classes, including humans. Unfortunately, I can offer no definitive, purely statistical, ...>>
Brooks: It seems to me that that if your "prophylactic group" was experiencing 10% of the "pathogenic afflictions" compared to your "non-prophylactic group" then a simple "t" test should provide a resulting statistical level of confidence associated with the claim that one group did indeed experience prophylactic pathogenic protection from CS. Could you please explain was such a statistical evaluation wasn't made, or why you think it's not valid to follow such a procedure. I believe that a "t" test does NOT require an assumption of normal distribution, if that was what you were worried about. Roger -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
