[Marxism] is a controversial nuclear plant to blame for soaring thyroid cancer rates in New York

hari kumar hari6.kumar at gmail.com
Fri Dec 8 15:32:08 MST 2017


This may be rather late. Nonetheless;
Jeff and David gave good explanations of chance findings (p value and what
a 95% probability might really mean).
But while raising the issue - they only indirectly discuss 'totality' of
evidence. Perhaps these points might assist:
1) the gold standard for therapy studies is the Randomised controlled trial.
2) but you cannot test all by that. For various reasons that even a
socialist state cannot overcome, altho' it will be better by far.
3) generally, the gold standard for aetiology - are large observational
studies. (Emphasise large).
4) perhaps the real point around which this discussion has revolved is:
there is rarely enough evidence to be 100% definite. But the progressive
elimination of doubt ( assymptotically closer to 'truth') is only possible
through replication. This is close to what jeff and david refer to as
'totality' of evidence. But I think the concept conveys a bit more. It
begins to unveil other issues - such as "non-rational" spurs to data
production, and interpretation (read scientific greed or ego or pride). See
John Ioannides PLOS; his paper on "why most research findings are false" -
became the most widely cited paper in medicine and (i think) the natural
sciences.

On the content area in general, there is little doubt that environmental
triggers for cancers may well explain the epidemic proportions of cancers
nowadays. But this is not in general, controversial - i believe - even in
purely academic circles. The burden of proof is however viewed as half-full
or half-empty by different opinions.
Hari Kumar



More information about the Marxism mailing list