4 ms·

So, I just read over the paper, and the biggest thing that stands out to me is: it's completely backwards, methodology-wise. They start from tumors, then work

by daeken 13y ago

So, I just read over the paper, and the biggest thing that stands out to me is: it's completely backwards, methodology-wise. They start from tumors, then work backwards to collect data about their mobile phone usage, and compare them to a control that is selected from a comparable population. I'm sorry, but that's not good science. Read over the "Materials and methods" section. It also has a remarkably low sample size (n=593). This is in contrast to the Interphone study (n=~14000), which found no statistically significant correlation between brain cancer and cell phone usage.

loceng 13y ago
Seriously? This is how many studies are done, unless you can have a highly controlled environment say with breeded rat populations. And yup, wouldn't it be great to keep track of absolutely everyone - and then see how they progress? The problem is most of us are bombarded with a lot of pollution (not just electrical), which all will affect our body's ability to cope with dis-ease and sickness. I'm not sure where you're getting the sample size of 14,000 ... though different pieces of the study had upwards of 5,000 participants.
- daeken 13y ago
  This is indeed how many studies are done. It's also why many studies are 1) completely worthless, and 2) impossible to reproduce. This is simply not valid science. It's not blinded, it's not representative of the population at large (or these would've come out of a randomly selected population), and it's not properly controlled. It's junk science.
  - loceng 13y ago
    So you believe it's completely useless and no value to take 1 common factor, and see what other common factors exist or vary from others who don't have that common factor?
    - TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
      Go read "bad science", then come back and answer your own question. :)
      - loceng 13y ago
        I hope the book itself doesn't make such as generalized claims as some of the sections of the Wikipedia page describing its sections.. I will add it to my read list though, thanks.
        TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
        I found it very elaborate, actually. It's certainly a very good read :)

by daeken 13y ago

loceng 13y ago

Seriously? This is how many studies are done, unless you can have a highly controlled environment say with breeded rat populations. And yup, wouldn't it be great to keep track of absolutely everyone - and then see how they progress? The problem is most of us are bombarded with a lot of pollution (not just electrical), which all will affect our body's ability to cope with dis-ease and sickness. I'm not sure where you're getting the sample size of 14,000 ... though different pieces of the study had upwards of 5,000 participants.

daeken 13y ago
This is indeed how many studies are done. It's also why many studies are 1) completely worthless, and 2) impossible to reproduce. This is simply not valid science. It's not blinded, it's not representative of the population at large (or these would've come out of a randomly selected population), and it's not properly controlled. It's junk science.
- loceng 13y ago
  So you believe it's completely useless and no value to take 1 common factor, and see what other common factors exist or vary from others who don't have that common factor?
  - TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
    Go read "bad science", then come back and answer your own question. :)
    - loceng 13y ago
      I hope the book itself doesn't make such as generalized claims as some of the sections of the Wikipedia page describing its sections.. I will add it to my read list though, thanks.
      - TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
        I found it very elaborate, actually. It's certainly a very good read :)