|
Did the jews learn to fight HIV | by hej | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
It's bogus | by Imp | 2005-08-04 11:44:07 |
|
The article said you can still get it if you are | by carthax | 2005-08-04 11:49:37 |
| The study was unscientific. |
by BloodyViking |
2005-08-04 11:55:43 |
| A properly scientific study would, of necessity, be unethical, as it would require exposing all of the participants to HIV. Unless all the participants had the same exposure, any results are meaningless. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
The exposure is "randomised", just | by hej | 2005-08-04 11:59:47 |
|
Randomization is what invalidates the results. | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 12:10:03 |
|
Clarification on the term "randomised study". | by Pic | 2005-08-04 12:19:40 |
|
How do you give a placebo circumsision? :) (n/t) | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 12:25:52 |
|
That is of course a problem, | by Pic | 2005-08-04 12:35:10 |
|
Are you kidding? | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 12:42:55 |
|
The random factor there is sort of inevitable. | by Pic | 2005-08-04 12:59:25 |
|
but we have just over a 2% difference | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 13:06:56 |
|
The relevance of the conclusion | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:10:05 |
|
Of Course the methodology is inherently wrong. | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 13:15:15 |
|
So statistics is crap? (n/t) | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:19:13 |
|
Frequently. In this particular case, definitely. | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 13:25:50 |
|
The best option I can think of, | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 13:10:18 |
|
That would indeed be useful, | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:14:27 |
|
but statistically | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 13:17:11 |
|
That's not really my point. | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:32:58 |
|
The sample is far from large enough | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 13:22:17 |
|
Side thought | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 13:29:51 |
|
That would invalidate the data. | by Peace_man | 2005-08-04 13:40:42 |
|
Yeah, | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:46:18 |
|
I suspect this is just a 'quick and dirty' initial | by Peace_man | 2005-08-04 15:19:54 |
