The Braist Study

[Pooka1]

This hdugger post is WORD SALAD. INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

Here, you can locate your contention that the researchers have suppressed certain data because succumbed to political pressure on the chart by yourself:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ement1.svg.png

IMO, it's less than name calling but more than responding to tone. It does not engage the *facts* of the study in any way. It notes the absence of certain data (engaging with fact) and then zooms right to 1) assuming that the researchers are hiding something by not including this data; 2) stating that they're hiding it because they've succumed to political pressure. At this point, we're miles away from the research and trying to ascertain the researchers motives for performing certain unsavory acts, none of which there's actually anything but conjectural evidence to support.

Dr. McIntire defends the researchers against the second accusation, saying that he doesn't believe that anything nefarious is going on, but does support the first idea that they're deliberately not publshing data because it would call their conclusion into question. I don't think that goes all the way to ad hominen, but I'd consider it uncharitable.

There's 10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.

[hdugger]

You need to STOP putting words in my mouth.

As I said, there is something funny going on here. I think many of the "successes" were >40* and even >45*. That is one possible explanation why they didn't publish the bottom line data.

= 1) assuming that the researchers are hiding something by not including this data

It smells of politics.

= 2) stating that they're hiding it because they've succumbed to political pressure.

And, again, we're miles away from anything of any interest to a parent trying to figure out whether or not to brace their child.

[flerc]

Hdugger, you are to falling into rat hole discussion, exactly the game she wants to play! Ad hominem attacks is a great resource and she is a Master using it. Nobody may defeat her in this kind of dirty, croward and dishonest game. As an old tango says ‘No habrá ninguna igual, no habrá ninguna’.. she is simply the best!
Moderator is watching, take care.

[Pooka1]

Once again...

ALL THESE BIOMEDICAL PAPERS ARE POLITICAL in the sense that they have to pick one way to present the data and not another way. I am assuming they are showing it they way they show it because that's what they believe is the correct way to show it given. Nobody has ever suggested they known that way A is better but have decided to show way B because they want to support a particular idea. YOU are the one reading that into my comments. YOU not ME. This is where you are intellectually dishonest. Maybe you don't realize you are doing it. I have no idea but you come across as incredibly dishonest to me.

My point is that there are choices to be made about presenting the data and sometimes the conclusions have to be nuanced. That's all I mean by politics. I don't know what other word to use for this. Obviously I am not suggesting they are being pressured to tow some party line... these researchers should get every award out there for simply doing the study when nobody else would or could.

The most obvious potential examples of what I ACTUALLY AM TALKING ABOUT are showing averages and not medians (if they differ), downplaying the scatter when there is significant scatter, etc. etc.

YOU are the one who is ascribing nefarious motives to that word in this context.

Here's an example of a graph that would take up the same space in the article though obviously would require more text to support it... a box plot.

http://nelsontouchconsulting.wordpre...nto-box-plots/

There may be some hyper-technical reason why this should not be shown for less than 30 points (each quartile in BrAIST as 29 points) but you can see how much more information it would show that is important.

Boxplots show so much information about the distribution.

You need to STOP putting words in my mouth. And your compare/contrast between my comments and others is ridiculous in my opinion. It is beneath you.

[Pooka1]

ALL THESE BIOMEDICAL PAPERS ARE POLITICAL

This is probably one of the many honest reasons why most published research results are not able to be replicated.

[flerc]

Yes, Statistics is a fraud. Fortunately the real Science is emerging from this Forum..

[flerc]

Sorry Hdugger, I'm doing the same..

[Pooka1]

I wrote...

these researchers should get every award out there for simply doing the study when nobody else would or could.

And I predict they will.

[Pooka1]

Yes, Statistics is a fraud. Fortunately the real Science is emerging from this Forum..

Do you think BrAIST is a "landmark" medical study?

[flerc]

I wrote...

these researchers should get every award out there for simply doing the study when nobody else would or could.

And I predict they will.

Fortunately the real Science is emerging from this Forum..

It seems I was right!

[flerc]

Do you think BrAIST is a "landmark" medical study?

I'll answer any question you want when you give just only one of the demonstrations about what you said, which I'm asking you for, since 16 pages ago!

[hdugger]

ALL THESE BIOMEDICAL PAPERS ARE POLITICAL in the sense that they have to pick one way to present the data and not another way.

Then you'll have to explain why I have not seen a similar discussion for every research article posted in this section. Why, if this study is actually really great compared to the rest, is this the only one where we have to examine the researcher's motives for presenting data in a certain way and not just look at the data itself.

nefarious motives

I'm a little hesitant to drag other participants back into this - certainly they haven't asked for it - but I do need to clarify a few things.

That word isn't mine (although I've used similar ones) I pulled the word nefarious from Dr. McIntire's post - "As far as any kind of nefarious motives, I tend to side with the scientists and give them the benefit of the doubt"

I'd also note this from Linda's post: "While I understand all of your observations, and in general agree, I think we have to ask ourselves if the authors had any motivation to "cheat" the data."

So, that doesn't come from me. It is other posters trying to correct the notion that the researchers had nefarious motives or that they were cheating the data. They're responding to something. I believe I'm responding to the same thing. I don't feel as if I'm reading things in, although it's hard to be totally clear about one's own motives - I think those things are there to be read, whether or not that was your intention.

******

To Flerc,

Hdugger, you are to falling into rat hole discussion,


I think I'm side-stepping, but I could always be wrong. It's important to call these things out because they have the effect of influencing opinion in a way that's hard to guard against. So, someone has, say, read the New York Times article and is feeling that bracing might actually be effective, and then they start reading here and, for reasons they don't understand and in ways that they're not aware of, they suddenly get the sense that maybe the research didn't actually say that or maybe it wasn't very good etc.

It's like these little pieces of conjectural fluff have the power to obscure and distort fact. Become more important than fact. Influence decisions even though they're not based on anything at all.

That's not a rat hole. That's the full and entire point. I can't keep people from throwing these pieces of fluff around, but I can, at least, point them out and clarify that they *are* fluff and not fact. Hopefully, that will help people to choose what to discard and what to keep and aid in their decision-making.

[Pooka1]

All you have to do is stop putting words in my mouth.

Don't involve me in you soapbox. This will escalate if you continue to do so.

You would NOT appreciate it if I did that to you.

[hdugger]

This will escalate if you continue to do so.

Threatening me isn't helpful. You asked why I reached the conclusion that I did and what I based it on, and I showed you exactly the statements I used and how I interpreted them.

All here

Engage with those interpretations or not as you choose. I choose not to further engage threats for behavior I consider acceptable.

[Pooka1]

Then you'll have to explain why I have not seen a similar discussion for every research article posted in this section. Why, if this study is actually really great compared to the rest, is this the only one where we have to examine the researcher's motives for presenting data in a certain way and not just look at the data itself.

That's because your emotion and personal dislike for me has crowded you into a dishonest corner.

Just one example, here is a post from in the middle of a string of journal articles on the purported efficacy of SURGERY, a subject you claim I support blindly, I posted in the thread cautioning about automatically believing these results, something YOU advocate doing with BrAIST.

http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showt...434#post145434

You know damn well I have posted or mentioned the Ioannidis (2005) article (why most published medical research results are false) INNUMERABLE times and still you write this.

You are DISHONEST in the EXTREME. It is patent.