tcarter2 at elp.rr.com (Thomas Carter) wrote:
>> >Hi Ian,
>> > Foremost allow me to apologize if I upset you. I know how
>> >easily we humans can be irritated by opposing opinions, and I try to
>> >avoid it. But I guess I'll have to try harder. I'd like to continue
>> >our discussion in a dispassionate, scientific manner. If you can't,
>> >feel free to cuss away. I have a thick skin, and a short memory for
>> >such things. :>)
>>>>>> IAN: Tom, it's important to accurately represent another's response.
>> You represent my response as "cussing away." "Cuss" means to curse,
>> and curse means "a profane word or phrase." A review of my reply
>> to you will not find the profanity that you imply exists therein:
> It never occured to me that the remark could be taken that way.
IAN: Well, it's always good to keep a dictionary on hand. :)
>Even so the remark was unappropeiate and I apoligize, and hope that
>you too, have a short memory for such things.
IAN: But regarding my previous comments, I hope you have a
long memory for such things. I really think it's extremely
inappropriate to accuse researchers of "data doctoring,"
especially when your claim is based on assumptions about
data that you do not have. Assumptions are highly fallible.
For example, your primary argument was that adjustment for
education should have increased the percentage of the "almost
never" tofu-eating group (n=38) above 2.6%, since 1/38 = 2.6%
(see: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/2/242/T1). But
doesn't that ASSUME that the lowest number of those scoring
below 50 must be 1? If ZERO people scored below 50, then
the listed 2.0% could be the upward adjustment. Or have I
missed some statement that says one person scored below 50?
>> As I said there: "you could broach your comments as hypotheses and
>> questions, rather than, as you have, accusations of 'data doctoring'
>> and firm conclusions of 'fatal mistakes' and such by the authors that
>> you use to caste sweeping aspersion on peer-review per se." Yet once
>> again in this response you're back declaring that your quick-glance
>> conclusions are inherently accurate prior to consultation with the
>> authors regarding what are really questions, not clear conclusions.
>>Yes I could have, but they are my conclusions, not questions nor
IAN: But anytime you read a study and suspect the researchers
have doctored the data, that suspicion is just a hypothesis,
and thus should not be stated as more than that. Moreover, in
most cases like this it should not even be mentioned unless
you have ALL the data and knew what was going on in the minds
of the researchers, which virtually excludes ever mentioning it.
We benefit by having and encouraging professionals to post in
these fora, but what professional should want to risk their
their long-and-hard-won reputation in places where charges of
professional fraud are so easily thrown about? Knock it off!
You have made many excellent contributions to our inquiries
here, which is why I'm aghast at your raising such accusations.
>> IAN: The study (http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/2/242) says:
>>>> "To investigate alternative explanations for the association of high
>> mid-life tofu intake with poorer cognition in late life, analyses were
>> conducted to identify possible confounding factors [...] Thirty-one
>> factors were examined [...] birth in Japan, years of childhood lived
>> in Japan [...] When the 933 subjects who had lived one or more years
>> of their childhood in Japan were excluded from the analysis, the
>> corresponding values were beta=-1.69, p=0.01 for 1965?67 tofu intake;
>> beta=-0.65, p=0.01 for 1971?74 tofu intake, and beta=-0.72, p=0.015
>> for the composite tofu intake index."
>>>> So even when the subgroup you claim biased the results was excluded,
>> a statistically significant relationship to tofu intake remained.
>> A statistically significant relationship between tofu and what?
>I'm glad you brought that up. It's another example of data doctoring
>that I had missed.
> Thruout the article the authors based the cognitive differences on
>the FAILURE rate in the CASI score. Which was about 1000 out of 7000.
>After adjusting for the confounding factors they wished to, (leaving
>out grade school in Japan among others) they managed to get an Odds
>Ratio for failure rate of 1.62 for the hi-hi group against the low-low
>group with a significant p value of .03. I will now show that had they
>left out the 933 men born in Japan the p value would have most likely
>been over .12, a mathematically insignificant value and would IMO have
>likey made the report unpublishable for lack of interest.
IAN: Tom, you are doing it again. You argue that "another example of
data doctoring" is data that "would have most likely been over .12."
By saying "most likely" you concede you are making an ASSUMPTION,
yet that does not stop you from stating with full certitude that
"another example of data doctoring" has been discovered. It seems
only too clear that your answer for anything you run into that you
don't immediately understand is that you've found "data doctoring."
It suggests to me that you approach this study hoping to find such.
Other than these observations, I just don't have any further time to
weed through your arguments and measure them against the study; and
frankly, I don't have confidence based on what I have reviewed of
your responses that doing so will result some meaningful insight.
"Zen wants absolute freedom, even from God." T.D. Suzuki