Medicine's Ten Greatest Discoveries
henryj at nina.pagesz.net
Sun Sep 6 07:12:31 EST 1998
In article <6stijp$lf8 at sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Steven B. Harris <sbharris at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <EQrI1.2130$c3.3697154 at tor-nn1.netcom.ca> "David Lloyd-Jones"
><dlj at pobox.com> writes:
>>In somewhat the same sense, multiple regression analysis, which was
>>destroyed epistemologically by Locke and Hume a couple of centuries
>>it actually came into general use, has no claim whatsoever to Platonic
>>logical rigor -- but is one of the most useful forms of explanation
>>have. Usually right, on rare occasions wrong.
> In your dreams. Logistic regression is mainly good for ruling out
>causation (in which case it really is usually right, and only on rare
>occations wrong). But for cases where variables correlate, the usual
>case is that direct causal relationships cannot be inferred, and quite
>often do not exist.
Any old excuse to justify the medical establishment's
fear of real facts. When we have vastly different medical
practice in the USA, such as radical prostate operations
common in some areas and not in others, but have similar
RESULTS, then badly-trained MDs (trained, NOT educated)
mouth that this means nothing becasue to admit it would
interfere with the cash flow.
More information about the Bioforum