Stats are a load of sh

  • Thread starter Deleted member 40035
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Frijj said:
They're not like. Stats are wonderful and show patterns and trends and associations that would otherwise have gone unknown or unrecognised.

Misapplication of stats is shite.
Click to expand...

Exactly this

There was a woman who successfully managed to sue Johnson and Johnson when she claimed she got ovarian cancer after using their products.

This meta analysis suggests that using talc can lead to a relative increase in risk of developing ovarian cancer of 33%. However, given the baseline risk of developing ovarian cancer is 0.0121%, that results in a risk of 0.0161%, for an absolute increase of 0.04%. Hardly seems like much, but she presumably won the $417 million because "33%" sounds big
 


Pants said:
If you want to start up another boring pro-pedestrian bullshit argument at least do it in the right thread... blah, blah, blah... [oblivious to own hypocrisy]... etc.
Click to expand...

Way to cover up for your own failings like your pro-smoking stance.

Harry Angstrom said:
I will reply as you have replied to my post.

I did not say I had you on ignore. I said I was ignoring you. There is a difference.

I was giving the poster a view on the thread.
Click to expand...

I like it when you give your views. You're usually wrong.

Pants said:
:lol: Only in the world of Thickie Frijj :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think you're a thick **** and you think I'm a thick ****

Seems we're at a stalemate

Since you're pro-smoking I think I win. Sorry bud.
 
Frijj said:
Way to cover up for your own failings like your pro-smoking stance.



I like it when you give your views. You're usually wrong.



I think you're a thick **** and you think I'm a thick ****

Seems we're at a stalemate

Since you're pro-smoking I think I win. Sorry bud.
Click to expand...
Wee thickie Frijjie, runs through the town,
Upstairs, downstairs, in his dressing gown,
Is he full of wee-wee? Is he full of poo?
Don't ask him - not a f***ing clue.
 
Pants said:
Wee thickie Frijjie, runs through the town,
Upstairs, downstairs, in his dressing gown,
Is he full of wee-wee? Is he full of poo?
Don't ask him - not a f***ing clue.
Click to expand...

You've lost the plot mate. Have a tab and calm yourself. It's clear you can't handle being criticised for your pro-smoking stance.

You won't even debate the issue as you know you won't win.
 
Frijj said:
You've lost the plot mate. Have a tab and calm yourself. It's clear you can't handle being criticised for your pro-smoking stance.

You won't even debate the issue as you know you won't win.
Click to expand...
I already have, little boy. Maybe ask mummy to explain it to you?
 
super noodles said:
Exactly this

There was a woman who successfully managed to sue Johnson and Johnson when she claimed she got ovarian cancer after using their products.

This meta analysis suggests that using talc can lead to a relative increase in risk of developing ovarian cancer of 33%. However, given the baseline risk of developing ovarian cancer is 0.0121%, that results in a risk of 0.0161%, for an absolute increase of 0.04%. Hardly seems like much, but she presumably won the $417 million because "33%" sounds big
Click to expand...
They were discussing this exact case on the radio yesterday. One expert saying the strength of the correlation suggests causality, another expert saying results are equivocal. Who is the layman supposed to believe?

Also there are frequent ads during daytime TV 'If you used baby powder and have ovarian cancer call this number'. I keep asking what's to stop every bewer with ovarian cancer from rolling up saying 'oh aye I used it. Every day. Where's my compo? There's no way to disprove they ever used it.
 
super noodles said:
Exactly this

There was a woman who successfully managed to sue Johnson and Johnson when she claimed she got ovarian cancer after using their products.

This meta analysis suggests that using talc can lead to a relative increase in risk of developing ovarian cancer of 33%. However, given the baseline risk of developing ovarian cancer is 0.0121%, that results in a risk of 0.0161%, for an absolute increase of 0.04%. Hardly seems like much, but she presumably won the $417 million because "33%" sounds big
Click to expand...

The red meat cancer scaremongering was the same
 
Dan..Dan..Dan..Dan said:
Unlikely to be exactly one.
Click to expand...

The prevalence of having only one testicle (monorchism) is estimated to be about 3% of men, so let's assume that there are 949,000 men in the UK with one testicle and 31,642,000 with two testicles.

I've probably worked this out wrong but that suggests the average man in the UK has 1.97 testicles. The average person in the UK has 0.97.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top