Unanswered Active Topics Forums Search

UserName:
Subject:	two questions
Body:	<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By Henci Goer on 07/05/2008 6:33 PM<br><P>Posted by Maria (above): I have yet to find where Johnson and Daviss admitted to have detorted the truth in the link you gave earlier. All I could find online was this <a target=_blank href="http://understandingbirthbetter.com/section.php?ID=31&Lang=En&Nav=Section">http://understandingbirthbetter.com/section.php?ID=31&Lang=En&Nav=Section</A></P> <P>Thank you, Maria! I just went to the page and read it through. Anyone who wants a calm, reasoned, scholarly explanation of the caveats of making appropriate statistical comparisons with the MANA 2000 study should follow your link. It does a better job of responding to Tuteur than I can do, which is not surprising since the author is an epidemiologist, and I am not.  </P> <P>As for Amy's mention of other deaths that I omitted from my calculation, this is a prime example of how she misuses data. The "other deaths" were not neonatal deaths. They were intrapartum deaths and therefore were not relevant to a comparison with hospital-based neonatal deaths. Indeed, Amy's persistent confusion over what is encompassed by "neonatal deaths"--this is not the first time I have pointed this out to her in this Forum--brings to mind Andrew Zang's comment: "He  [or, in this case, she] uses statistics the way a drunken man uses lamposts--more for support than illumination."</P> <P>-- Henci<BR></P></div><br><br>
Show Replies:

ActiveForums 3.6