Posts by James Green
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I feel somewhat skeptical that a multi-choice test of your arcane vocabulary knowledge and fifth-form maths is actually going to separate people in a meaningful way, especially when the difference between a high and a mediocre grade can be as little as five questions.
Bahaha. Unfortunately NZ's relative disdain for intelligence testing is not overly useful, although perhaps that should be the real criteria for logical thinking. Despite the ideal that it studying should not convey an advantage for such tests, it's not the case, which puts us at a disadvantage.
-
That was the interview that Henry was born to do!
-
I feel like Clinton should really be Windows 98. Fun but not very reliable. I guess that would make Windows NT Helmut Kohl, or perhaps Madeline Albright?
-
Windows 7 is to paraphrase Leo, a Cake Made of Win.
However, having been using the Beta and RC for most of the year, I've somewhat got out of the idea of paying for my OS.With the power of hindsight, I realise that I should have sold my copy of vista on trademe months ago. D'oh.
Windows 7 RC pumpkins in March I think? so I have until then to either decide that I want to pay for it, or try Mythbuntu or something.
Quite tempted to see if work will upgrade my laptop to Windows 7. My XP install is getting a bit tired. Although I'm starting to wonder if what I want is the new Dell 11z. It seems like the bastard love child of a netbook and laptop. Mmmm 1.35kg. Mmmm dual cores. And only ~$1200
-
Several eminent people got rather grumpy at Cochrane for, having proven there was no statistically significant difference between the 'ineffective' and 'effective' treatments it then talks about them as different groups.
I'm at the point I'd like to have the names of these eminent people, and some references for the lack of efficacy for conventional treatments.
-
The report makes a distinction in the above piece between 'ineffective' and 'effective' therapies, yet their report finds that the difference is not statistically significant since nothing is actually effective.
If this is true, then it's outrageous. To say something is effective in science-speak requires statistical significance.
However, I don't see where you find evidence for your claim that nothing is actually effective. The evidence isn't overwhelming, the effect sizes are not large, but there is evidence for effectiveness.
There is quite a distinct mismatch between their plain language summary/abstract and their final conclusion
Therefore, we conclude that spinal manipulative therapy is one of several options of only modest effectiveness for patients with low-back pain. Truly effective therapy for such patients remains elusive.
as compared to
spinal manipulation was more effective in reducing pain and improving the ability to perform everyday activities than sham (fake) therapy and therapies already known to be unhelpful
Relevant to the rest of the discussion, among these other treatments of 'modest' effectiveness according to Cochrane are acupuncture, exercise, some herbal preparations and rofecoxib (Vioxx!!!). Bed rest seems one of the few things that is not modestly effective.
-
Notably the other 51% of the population. How can it be claimed that a tested drug is safe and effective when we know that men and women are biochemically different?
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Stage 1 trials are the ones that are usually men -- and are pretty much "is this going to kill a person?" trials. They also involve only healthy subjects, and are not designed to test the effectiveness. By the time trials are seriously testing effectiveness as well as safety, they don't just test on men. There is a little chauvinism/dispensibility about it, in that treatments are tested on animals>men>women>children*
*actually, most drug treatments are not tested on children. It's considered to be too expensive and too hard for an insufficiently big market. By the time you get down to infants there are very few medicines available.
-
All this talk of rockets reminds of Sam Mahon's attempt to send a golfball into orbit that played God Defend New Zealand. It must be an old TV program, as there is little trace of it on teh interweb :(
-
Russell I don't think that $5000 figure is accurate for Cordbank. It's about 1/2 that and $200 per annum from memory
$2750 plus 10 years storage x $200/yr is approx 5k. I guess it depends on how long it might be kept for...
-
Rather close to questioning integrity?
I'm an academic. It's in my nature to hedge. In the same way Skegg offers up misunderstanding to blunt the possibility of deliberate obfuscation.
And on the Marsden Fund. One of its oddities is that its conflict of interest rules often discount the people best able to judge. On the other hand, it's had recent pressure in the opposite direction, to try and reduce CoI. It's the issue with a small isolated country I guess. At the moment the Humanities panel has a Victoria historian, but when Bryder got her Marsden, if the only historian on the Humanities panel was from Auckland, then they'd stand down. Then you may end up with a philosopher or an english scholar picking referees for a history project...