Results 1 to 6 of 6

Threaded View

  1. #4
    Tree Frog
    Join Date
    May 21st, 2003
    Location
    Richmond, CA
    Posts
    474
    I'm not saying that 100,000 people -- half of them women and children -- haven't been killed, I have no idea, but this study doesn't prove it. Its pathetic that the major scientific journals like Science, Nature, and Lancet publish shoddy science to promote a favored agenda. Come on, they rushed it because they just had to get it out 5 days before an election, coincidence, yeah right. Plus the fact that any relative risk below 3 you should view with caution, anything below 2 means that it is almost certain there is no significant relationship, this study has a RR of 1.1 - 2.4. Which in itself shows their data is crap because you never see them with such large ranges, generally it is reported as something like RR 1.7, thats it, no range.
    Last edited by Blog; October 29th, 2004 at 11:13 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts