Chance News 19: Difference between revisions
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
David Armstrong | David Armstrong | ||
Another example of what the most important question a consumer of statistical information should ask can be found in this Wall Streat Journal article. The front-page piece is a lengthy commentary on a | Another example of what the most important question a consumer of statistical information should ask can be found in this ''Wall Streat Journal'' article. The front-page piece is a lengthy commentary on a ''JAMA'' article dealing with the desirability of prescribing antidepressant medication to pregnant women. (Relapse of major depression during pregnancy in women who maintain or discontinue antidepressant treatment, Cohen LS, Altshuler LL, Harlow BL, et al ''JAMA''. 2006; 295: 499-507). | ||
Turns out that "most of the 13 authors are paid as consultants or lecturers by the makers of antidepressants." And apparently paid well, although none chooses to reveal the amount to the WSJ. Further, as the lead author, Dr. Lee S. Cohen, of the JAMA article put it, "'it didn't seem relevant' for him and several of his co-authors to disclose their industry relationships in the JAMA paper in part because the study was funded by the government, not drug makers." JAMA's editor-in-chief "says the journal wasn't aware of the relationships" to the pharmaceutical industry but Dr. Cohn's explanation "will be published very soon in an upcoming issue of JAMA." In any event, he says, "we are not talking about megabucks" although "He declined to specify what he does in his consulting role for the companies or how much he is paid." | Turns out that "most of the 13 authors are paid as consultants or lecturers by the makers of antidepressants." And apparently paid well, although none chooses to reveal the amount to the WSJ. Further, as the lead author, Dr. Lee S. Cohen, of the JAMA article put it, "'it didn't seem relevant' for him and several of his co-authors to disclose their industry relationships in the JAMA paper in part because the study was funded by the government, not drug makers." JAMA's editor-in-chief "says the journal wasn't aware of the relationships" to the pharmaceutical industry but Dr. Cohn's explanation "will be published very soon in an upcoming issue of JAMA." In any event, he says, "we are not talking about megabucks" although "He declined to specify what he does in his consulting role for the companies or how much he is paid." | ||
Revision as of 19:42, 17 July 2006
Quotation
Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment. - Jean Baudrillard
Forsooths
forsooth1
source
date
forsooth2
source
date
Another Look at "The Kindness of Strangers?"
In a recent wiki, The Kindness of Strangers, based on a paper ["Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)in cardiac bypass patients"] by Herbert Benson et al., you will find a commentary regarding this latest statistical attempt to foist intercessory prayer--IP as it is now known--into the realm of science. Nevertheless, despite the excellence of the wiki, some additional comment is in order. As stated, the $2.4 million dollar waste of time was sponsored by the foundation of the billionaire John Templeton; for more on the individual, his son and the foundation, and why so many "American medical schools now offer courses on links between health and spirituality," the reader is directed to The Templeton Foundation: A Skeptic's Take. In short, the answer is money for the asking.
The same issue of The American Heart Journal [vol. 151, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 934-942] which contained the paper by Benson--there are, believe it or not, 15 other authors!--also has an editorial by Krucoff, Crater and Lee [Pages 762-764] which states "the STEP investigators' interpretation of the study results appears to reflect more the cultural bias that healing prayer...is only capable of doing good if it does anything at all." Unfortunately, the editorial while being skeptical, fails to note some other failures inherent in the article.
For one thing, unlike real medicine, there is no notion of dosage as in amount of time spent per individual praying. For another, in defiance of physical laws, distance between patient and prayers [St. Paul, MN, Worcester, MA and Lee's Summit, MO] appears to be irrelevant. And then, there is the statistical difficulty of going from a sample to a population. As is virtually always true, the people doing the praying are Christians. Consequently, while the patients who were prayed for in this study did worse than those who weren't prayed for, it is conceivable that other religions would score higher. However, Templeton is not a Moslem, Shintoist or a Hindu so we will never know because I suspect his foundation is not eager to pursue this line of reasoning.
The Annals of Behavioral Medicine, June 13, 2006 has an excellent article, "Are There Demonstrable Effects of Distant Intercessory Prayer? A Meta-Analytic Review" by Masters, Spielmans and Goodson. STEP is not included but 14 other studies are, including the discredited one by Lobo, Cha and Worth--Lobo withdrew his name and Worth is in prison. Based on their meta-analysis, Masters, Spielmans and Goodson write,
There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.
Discussion
1. Why is the following phrase cherished by statisticians and other scientists? "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
2. If one assumes that IP is absurd, what is it about conventional prayer--prayer by the patient, prayer by his loved ones, etc.--that distinguishes it from IP?
3. If IP has some effect, is it ethical to prayer for someone without his knowledge?
4. Benson claims "We were unable to locate other Christian, Jewish or non-Christian groups that could receive the daily prayer list of this multiyear study." Suppose they did locate these other groups. Speculate on the outcome if these other groups were included.
5. According to The Columbia University 'Miracle' Story when referring to Daniel Worth, "A good rule of thumb for a medical journal is that anyone who uses the names of dead children in order to fraudulently obtain bank loans, jobs and passports is not a reliable source of data." However, the other two authors are medical doctors so should suspicion diminish?
6. Steven Weinberg is a Nobel Laureate in Physics and an atheist. He once said, I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue." What do you think he means?
7. Discuss how the interest in IP reflects the shift to the right in American politics and religion.
8. What sort of pardox is implied when people of faith need statistics to buttress their beliefs?
Submited by Paul Alper
The IQ of Aahkenazim Jews
The Lessons of the Ashkenazim, Groups and Genes
The New Republic, June 26, 2006
Steven Pinker
Readers comments
Natural History of Ashkanzi Intelligence
Gregory Cochran Jason Hardy and Henry Harpending
Journal of Biosocial Science to appear in 2006 and available now at Journal's website.
La Griffe du Lion La Griffe du Lion
To be continued
Probability of Pregnancy
On June 24th, the UK newspaper The Guardian contained the following quote:
A friend of mine got pregnant the first time she slept with her (now) husband, at the age of 43; this was after she had made a documentary on infertility and had been repeatedly told by fertility experts that her chances of conceiving naturally were "less than 5%". This may be right as a general statistic, but it wasn't right in her case: her chances of conceiving, provided she had sex at the right time of the month, were 100%.
(Full article available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1804775,00.html).
Discussion
- What do you think the author meant by "a general statistic". What other sorts are there?
- Any person's chance of getting pregnant is 0% or 100%, so what does a 5% chance of getting pregnant mean?
- Are there different (but equally correct) interpretations of that 5% probability?
Depressing News
Financial ties to industry cloud depression study.
Wall Streat Journal, Tues. July 11, 2006
David Armstrong
Another example of what the most important question a consumer of statistical information should ask can be found in this Wall Streat Journal article. The front-page piece is a lengthy commentary on a JAMA article dealing with the desirability of prescribing antidepressant medication to pregnant women. (Relapse of major depression during pregnancy in women who maintain or discontinue antidepressant treatment, Cohen LS, Altshuler LL, Harlow BL, et al JAMA. 2006; 295: 499-507).
Turns out that "most of the 13 authors are paid as consultants or lecturers by the makers of antidepressants." And apparently paid well, although none chooses to reveal the amount to the WSJ. Further, as the lead author, Dr. Lee S. Cohen, of the JAMA article put it, "'it didn't seem relevant' for him and several of his co-authors to disclose their industry relationships in the JAMA paper in part because the study was funded by the government, not drug makers." JAMA's editor-in-chief "says the journal wasn't aware of the relationships" to the pharmaceutical industry but Dr. Cohn's explanation "will be published very soon in an upcoming issue of JAMA." In any event, he says, "we are not talking about megabucks" although "He declined to specify what he does in his consulting role for the companies or how much he is paid."
Discussion
1. Defend Dr. Cohn's distinction regarding source of funding. Criticize Dr. Cohen's distinction regarding source of funding.
2. Justify JAMA's editor-in-chief's delay in publishing Dr.Cohen's explanation.
3. Speculate on why there are so many authors.
4. Suppose a medical doctor with ties to antidepressant pharmaceutical companies would publish a study which revealed that antidepressants were harmful in certain situations. What, if any financial consequences would he suffer?
Submited by Paul Alper