Skandhaless
Striker
What about hermaphrodites?
- Status
Harry Angstrom
Striker
Called LGBTQ now mate.
Such low prevalence probably won't alter numbers
Skandhaless
Striker
What's the tq for?
Harry Angstrom
Striker
LGBTQQIAAP stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies and Pansexual, with all other nine laying under the umbrella of Queer.
John Steed
Striker
People thought the earth was flat till somebody proved it wasn't. Stats didn't tell us smoking was unsafe doctors and scientists did. Unless you're rather strangely trying to claim research and gained knowledge is statistics if you are you might as well say anything is a statistic.
Tin Soldier
Striker
The Mags would win football leagues using statistics
Rather strangely?
Mate the use of statistical methods is how research proves things.
That isn't strange - that's how research works. The groundbreaking work into proving the dangers of smoking was proven with statistics.
If you don't believe me just look up the definition of epidemiology
Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations. It is the cornerstone of public health, and shapes policy decisions and evidence-based practice by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive healthcare. Epidemiologists help with study design, collection, and statistical analysis of data, amend interpretation and dissemination of results (including peer review and occasional systematic review). Epidemiology has helped develop methodology used in clinical research, public health studies, and, to a lesser extent, basic research in the biological sciences.[1]
It is such statistical analysis you see in almost all medical research with a quantitative basis
E.g. The odds ratio for developing lung cancer if you're a smoker
Last edited:
zwartekat
Striker
John Steed
Striker
The groundbreaking work was doctors and scientists realising the dangers of smoking and researching their beliefs. Without that work there would have been no data to compile.
You are ruling this thread.
That's either sarcasm or you spelt ruining wrong
In "The history of the discovery of the cigarette-lung cancer link", RN Proctor writes that 'population studies' (ie large sample to draw statistically valid conclusions from) were "amongst the first and most convincing forms of evidence" and presents the case of someone who literally carried out a study and used the data to produce statistics to quantify the risk.
Google "Doll Bradford Hill smoking study" for a British example and see the stats they used
FYI, Dr Richard Doll lists himself in the research as a member of the statistical research unit of the medical research council and Dr A. Bradford Hill as a professor of medical statistics and director of the statistical research unit
Last edited:
zwartekat
Striker
Not sarcasm. You've made some excellent points about the use of statistics.
John Steed
Striker
But there must have been a belief in the dangers of smoking for any research to be carried out into the dangers. That was the groundbreaking work not compiling that information to convince sceptics.
Given that roughly half of all doctors in the US smoked as of the 1950s, there was considerable denial that there was a link
Look mate I'm not being funny but people who've studied the history of medicine and people who are actual f***ing professors consider this work to be groundbreaking work in proving the link between smoking and cancer
What you're arguing the toss for is beyond me, unless you're just trying to prove me wrong, which given our history on here, I'm starting to suspect
Hackedbrain
Reserve Squad
Statistics don't smell or anything.
Tabs do.
Tabs do.
WildTurkey
Midfield
Useful, at best, surely???
John Steed
Striker
I thought to claim the groundbreaking work was the statistics and not the actual research itself was crass really.
I would never try and prove you wrong as you always think you're right so it would be a waste of time. As for its me arguing the toss it takes two to tango.
The research is based on statistics man. At its very, very simplest you have two groups of patients. For example.
Smokers (n=1000)
- with lung cancer - 125 (a)
- without lung can - 875 (b)
Non smokers (n=1000)
- with lung cancer - 21 (c)
- without lung can - 979 (d)
Odds ratio is 6.6
(In reality it's about 20)
But maybe you'll see my point? You have patients. You take data. You draw statistical conclusions
Hackedbrain
Reserve Squad
Wouldn't we have figured that out by now anyway?
I can just see numbers.
- Status
