From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Organization: ScotSoft Research
	<Brru7C.IM@ssr.com> <1992Jul22.225852.7064@samba.oit.unc.edu>
	<ROCKWELL.92Jul23091242@socrates.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:51:27 GMT

In article <ROCKWELL.92Jul23091242@socrates.umd.edu> rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell) writes:

   Hmmm.....  If I have a bone to pick, it's that I don't think Scott
   Ballantyne is being consistent.  For example, although he apparently
   normalizes benefits against those of a placebo he does not normalize
   risks that way.

It's completely meaningless to say 'normalize against a placebo'. A
placebo has only two functions: 1) experimental control (controlling
for other variables so they don't confound the results) 2) Tests of
significance (where the placebo becomes the classic null hypothesis).
Neither of these have anything to do with 'normalizing'.

   If the risk of death were normalized, it could even be less than zero.

What would a risk < 0 mean?  A risk of zero would be that
hypothetical, non-existant 'perfect safety'. So a risk less than zero
would be the fountain of youth?

   Other inconsistencies I noticed were:

      (*) For some reason he was comparing "complications of ECT" with
	    "side-effects of niacin treatments on patients receiving
	    cholesterol treatments".  There are several contradictions I
	    see here:

Since the Church of Scientology does not provide statistics, I had to
take them where I find them. Obviously good studies on the Purif would
be preferable, Scientologists don't seem interested in providing them
for some reason. I did this rather than provide the anecdotal evidence
I have that the purification rundown is not harmless. It's not
uncommon, and the populations are likely to be similar (they might
even intersect).

	    (*) niacin therapy for cholesterol patients is not the same
		  as the purification rundown.

Then provide me with statistics on the purification rundown. I have
certainly been promised them enough times from various sources...

	    (*) There is a strong probability that these side effects are
		  not due to niacin but are due to it's packaging.

Irrelevant. That's still a risk factor for a procedure. Risks from ECT
would include possible malfunctions of equipment, contaminination of
the drugs used, etc.

	    (*) It's not immediately obvious that the severity of these
		  side effects were comparable to the complications of
		  ECT therapy.

Beside the point.

	    (*) There has been a change of several orders of magnitude in
		  the incidence of complications from ECT.  Yet, as
		  presented, there is no such change in the rate of side
		  effects from cholesterol therapy.  I feel this is
		  significant, because: 

Untrue, as you know. Side effects from niacin therapy went way, *way*
*up* when sustained release niacin started being used.

      (*) Statistics, such as those presented by Scott, are a way of
	    collecting information about their sample population.
	    Statistics do not, in and of themselves, show any
	    relationship between their populations.  That must be shown
	    from a complete description of these populations.  Yet, as
	    presented, there is not even a complete description of how
	    these statistics were gathered.  [What was included, what was
	    excluded, and why.]

Again this is incorrect. Statistics are a way of *describing* the
information about a sample population, and *judgement* is the key
factor in determining relationships and making decisions based on
statistical data. Judgement (or rather its lack) is precisely what is
being demonstrated here, with all this meaningless (and incorrect)
nattering about statistics. There's no formula that will tell you what
to do --- Benefits must be balanced against risks, and the individual
must decide. That's hard when there is some risk and some benefit.
It's easy when there is some risk and no demonstrated benefit.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com