4 ms·

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statistics/observational-studies-2/ http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statistics/observational-... "Researchers doing obser

by tjaerv 13y ago

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statistics/observational-studies-2/ http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statistics/observational-... "Researchers doing observational studies have much the same problem. They try to think of all the differences between two large populations of subjects so that they can statistically negate them so that only the observation in question – the vitamin C level in the example above – is different between the groups. Problem is they can never possibly think of all the differences between the groups. As a consequence, they never have a perfect study with exactly the same number, sex, age, lifestyle, etc. on both sides with the only difference being the study parameter. And so they don’t really ever prove anything. In fact, we would all probably be a lot better off if all the researchers doing observational studies had followed my lead and fallen asleep mid study."

raverbashing 13y ago
This is one important issue I'm wondering if there are better statistical tools to deal with it today. Give it the individual profile of each person and let it draw the correlations.
retrogradeorbit 13y ago
The China–Cornell–Oxford Project ruled out population differences by using a very large monoculture, rural China. http://web.archive.org/web/20090223222003/http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject/ http://web.archive.org/web/20090223222003/http://www.nutriti... And even though it was epidemiological (statistically based), it's findings were strong and it confirmed prior laboratory results and hypotheses.
- Evgeny 13y ago
  For an interesting and deep analysis of China Study, one can look at http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal... She uses Campbell's own figures, but comes to almost diametrally opposite results. It's up to statisticians here to judge how right or wrong she is ...
- tjaerv 13y ago
  The China study's results are a massive dataset of statistical correlations, useful as input for hypothesis generation. On the other hand, "The China Study", Dr. Campbell's best-selling popular book wherein he attempts to interpret the data causatively, has been absolutely demolished and debunked as egregiously bad science for some time now. Evgeny already linked to Denise Minger's notorious initial critique that got the ball rolling. Dr. Eades (of the grandparent post) wrote his own critique at: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/ http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs... "The web has been alive with commentary the past few weeks since Denise Minger lobbed her first cannonball of a critique across the bow of The China Study, the vessel T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. rode to fame and bestsellerdom. Seems like everyone is now jumping into the fray and gunning for poor Dr. Campbell, who early on in the fracas made a few halfhearted attempts to fight back but has now fled the scene. I've been laying low watching it all play out, and so now figured it's about time I add my two cents worth to the debate."

by tjaerv 13y ago

raverbashing 13y ago

This is one important issue I'm wondering if there are better statistical tools to deal with it today. Give it the individual profile of each person and let it draw the correlations.

retrogradeorbit 13y ago

The China–Cornell–Oxford Project ruled out population differences by using a very large monoculture, rural China. http://web.archive.org/web/20090223222003/http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject/ http://web.archive.org/web/20090223222003/http://www.nutriti... And even though it was epidemiological (statistically based), it's findings were strong and it confirmed prior laboratory results and hypotheses.

Evgeny 13y ago
For an interesting and deep analysis of China Study, one can look at http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal... She uses Campbell's own figures, but comes to almost diametrally opposite results. It's up to statisticians here to judge how right or wrong she is ...
tjaerv 13y ago
The China study's results are a massive dataset of statistical correlations, useful as input for hypothesis generation. On the other hand, "The China Study", Dr. Campbell's best-selling popular book wherein he attempts to interpret the data causatively, has been absolutely demolished and debunked as egregiously bad science for some time now. Evgeny already linked to Denise Minger's notorious initial critique that got the ball rolling. Dr. Eades (of the grandparent post) wrote his own critique at: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/ http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs... "The web has been alive with commentary the past few weeks since Denise Minger lobbed her first cannonball of a critique across the bow of The China Study, the vessel T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. rode to fame and bestsellerdom. Seems like everyone is now jumping into the fray and gunning for poor Dr. Campbell, who early on in the fracas made a few halfhearted attempts to fight back but has now fled the scene. I've been laying low watching it all play out, and so now figured it's about time I add my two cents worth to the debate."