tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6769780183927667829.post6781453479738195075..comments2023-09-15T07:07:48.664-07:00Comments on Lies Cubed: Introducing This BlogStudenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04746884815415596625noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6769780183927667829.post-4777505814581047772011-06-20T21:35:45.931-07:002011-06-20T21:35:45.931-07:00I just wanted to say I look forward to future post...I just wanted to say I look forward to future posts on this blog. I'm a journalist who comes from a math and science background, instead of a literary background, and love this blogs topic.<br /><br />Have you ever read "A mathemtician reads the newspaper?" It's very good.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6769780183927667829.post-6884904637606077992011-06-17T10:36:19.217-07:002011-06-17T10:36:19.217-07:00@C: I'm talking mainly about the 'risk ass...@C: I'm talking mainly about the 'risk assessment' tests like triple screen, which is certainly not a genetic test (I have a PhD in biochem/genetics; I do know the difference. :) ). If the true-negative rate is, as quoted, ~95% for women under 30, whose basal risk is <1/1000, that's what I, personally, would consider inaccurate. And yes, people's misunderstandings of genetics statistics give me heartburn too!Janice Friendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05231740135023106158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6769780183927667829.post-22281084476268733462011-06-16T19:35:59.946-07:002011-06-16T19:35:59.946-07:00As a perinatologist (= high risk OB specialist), I...As a perinatologist (= high risk OB specialist), I kinda feel like I need to comment now. I assume, Janice, we are speaking of prenatal genetic diagnosis tests? (As opposed to, say, checking a maternal blood count, which has less of an overt connection to statistical misuse). <br /><br />Anyway, what I wanted to say is that many of us know how useless the language of statistics is for certain situations. That is, saying: "Your fetus has a 1/100 chance of Down's syndrome" is not terribly useful, since you're not going to have this pregnancy 100 times. It either is, or it isn't, is the way most people see it; and they tend to hear what we say as a yes or a no. <br />(And that's for people who don't have numeracy issues! Which is pretty much everybody!). <br /><br />So the language is inadequate, I think, rather than the test being inaccurate. The test does what it is designed to do; whether that is what people *want* it to do, or understand it to have done is an entirely different story. <br /><br />But I think prenatal screening tests probably need their own post for their interesting and yes, quite likely not-particularly-helpful use of statistics. And I'll stop writing now, and go think about posting at my place.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10961763439921487407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6769780183927667829.post-67762398090852441132011-06-16T15:14:23.365-07:002011-06-16T15:14:23.365-07:00Though I have no information on every state, I vol...Though I have no information on every state, I volunteered in CT and they did, in fact, have an independent audit every year. (They also had a lot of trouble with alphabetical filing, but that's a separate problem.) PP's director claims they saw <a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/leading-members-congress-stand-planned-parenthood-36207.htm" rel="nofollow">three million</a> patients last year but even so, about 11% of patients got abortions (assuming no repeat customers, which is definitely not the case). Those 11% certainly also got their pap smears and something contraceptive, that's for darn sure. In any event, Kyl is an ill-informed weasel.<br /><br />As for the third category: prenatal screening tests!! Wildly inaccurate!Janice Friendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05231740135023106158noreply@blogger.com