Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hammer.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!hammer!seifert
From: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: This has gone much too far!
Message-ID: <1292@hammer.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Jun-85 19:37:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: hammer.1292
Posted: Sun Jun  2 19:37:51 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 07:36:36 EDT
References: <1589@aecom.UUCP> <1273@hammer.UUCP> <1550@amdahl.UUCP> <1685@aecom.UUCP> <349@osiris.UUCP> <1711@aecom.UUCP>
Reply-To: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Lines: 44
Keywords: statistics "inert placebos" "Medical proof"

>	The original study I cited was for RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS.  It lasted
>5 years.  Ten years AFTER THE STUDY WAS OVER, it was shown that 5 people
>who had participated in it had gotten cancer. All five of these had been in
>the control group however, had not recieved any drug, and therefore the fact
>that they got cancer is just a coincidence.  (This was an older population,
>it happens.)  
>	The point I wanted to make was had the coincidence fallen the other
>way, that drug (an immunosuppresant) would have most likely been banned as
>a known (talk about Medical proof!?) carcinogen.

This is exactly the reason why double blind tests were invented.
If there is enough "Medical proof" to ban the drug, there's enough
"Medical proof" to ban the "placebo". (from the Ideal Placebo Company?)
If there is not enough "Medical proof" to ban the "placebo", then
there is not enough "Medical proof" to ban the drug.

You CANNOT just say "This is a placebo. It is 'inert'"

I'm not claiming that the placebos used were carcinogenic.  They
*probably* weren't.  But you can't ASSUME that they aren't just
because you THINK that they are inert.  You have to look at a large
enough sampling for those 5 cases to dissappear into the noise.

Note to whoever it was: I've read that medical student receive
about 3-5 hours (that's hours, not credit-hours) of instruction
in nutrition.  The typical doctor knows about as much about nutrition
as his/her secretary, less if the secretary is on a diet!
(If this has changed recently, I'm sure Craig will update
my information.)
Note to the other whoever-it-was: Feel free to compare this with
the amount of statistics you have to wade through to get an
engineering degree.

>Now we've been though it before.  Let's all save the net a lot of phone
>bills, and please do not respond to this article.
>-- 
>				Craig Werner

No, Craig, we are not just going to hand you the 'last word' on
a silver platter.  If you want the last word, then present an
argument that doesn't have any holes in it.

Snoopy
tektronix!mako!seifert