|
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126397480.741550.314100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> george conklin wrote:
>> > COMMENT:
>> >
>> > ONCE AGAIN: Self selection is why you're supposed to be eating
>> > vegetables. Are you REALLY asking us to throw out all post hoc
>> > epidemiology completely?
>> >
>> > SBH
>> >
>>
>> Healthy women self-selected for HRT in the first place.
>
>
> COMMENT:
> Yes, George, we know that now. Heathy people self-select for how much
> exercise they do and how many fruits and nuts they eat. And vitamins
> they take. So?
>
So the results from such self-selection can never be used because they
give the false appareance of success even if none is implied. In HRT, they
gave the false impression of success when HARM was the result. How can
doubling of cancer rates go unnoticed? Well, it did. And it will in the
future unless real research takes place.
>> Epidemology
>> involving large groups of non-selected people is quite different from the
>> looking at those who go to doctors and who do not resist the push they
>> are
>> giving to get HRT.
>
>
> How so?
>
Because what you are looking at with self-selection is the correlate of
people who choose one or more treatments. It is not the result of the
treatment. Now, if you have, as we do, large variations in treatment
fashions for a population and people really have little choice, then you
have more of a natural experiment. Large numbers of non-self-selected
people are given treatment A, based on region. In other regions everyone
gets treatment B. That would be a good thing to study. But if everyone
gets a choice of Treatment A or Treatment B, then you get self-selection.
Prostate cancer results have long been messed up with this kind of
self-selection.
> Did the doctor try to get your wife to lose weight and exercise? How
> do you know weight loss and exercise and healthy? Maybe they're just
> marker behaviors for the kind of people who go to doctors a lot.
>
You would need other evidence than just what you mention because we know
that such advice is also class-specific. By the way, my wife did loose
weight and her doctor told her, 'enough,' even though she technically
overweight.
>
>> My wife had to say NO to HRT, but was pushed pushed and
>> pushed. The benefits were supposed to be tremendous for diseases now
>> known
>> only to be made worse by HRT.
>
>
> Maybe the same is true of dropping 10 lbs.
>
Irrelevant to HRT.
>
>
>> You mentioned that doctors always knew the
>> facts of HRT.
>
>
> No, you have me confused with SJ Doc.
>
>
>
>> Well, in fact the medical business did NOT know the risks
>> because the risks were self-selected.
>
>
> They didn't know anything about the risks because studies were
> retrospective, and the proper controls hadn't been done. That is all.
> People who smoke don't visit the doctor as much, either. People who
> are couch potatos don't take care of themselve in many ways. People who
> take vitamins are self-selected. So are people who are vegetarians, and
> people who eat pickled pig's feet. And people who buy pickup trucks.
> What is your point? Do you HAVE a point?
>
A proper clinical trial should have been done first before millions of
women were put on HRT for mythical benefits.
>
>> Epidemiology is a vast field and but
>> work based on who goes to the doctor is not the same thing either.
>
>
> Sure it is.
>
Totally wrong.
|
|