tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50291337805876418042024-03-08T12:22:04.488-08:00Stat Girl Skewers the NewsReminding the world that correlation is not causality one headline at a time.Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-6403846804741903982013-01-19T11:18:00.001-08:002013-01-19T11:18:34.800-08:00What The Daily Beast’s Absurd Vaccine Truther Screed Tells Us About Journalism<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/01/18/1471051/what-the-daily-beasts-absurd-vaccine-truther-screed-tells-us-about-journalism/">What The Daily Beast’s Absurd Vaccine Truther Screed Tells Us About Journalism</a>: pI’m not going to link to the execrable anti-vaccine screed published on The Daily Beast today. I’m not even going to link to the thoughtful, well-written counterpoint they published by a infectious disease specialist. To do either would reward a transparent attempt to gin up a pageview-inducing “controversy.” Moreover, it would treat the two pieces [...]/pStatgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-2422155968571681232013-01-03T11:56:00.000-08:002013-01-03T11:56:03.763-08:00Happy 2013! Children born during recessions more likely to exhibit problem behaviors? More scaremongering for all those parents of children born in 2008, 2009, AND those children were unwanted and cared for by unavailable working parents or Spot the Lousy Logic (a fun and interactive game)<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">WARNING - This made me angry so it may read like a rant...</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The article, "<a href="http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/recession-babies-grow-troubled-teens-193300087.html">Do Recession Babies Grow Up to Be Troubled Teens</a>?" </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> suggests that children born during the recessionary period in the early 1980s had higher rates of substance abuse, theft and other behaviors. All of the children? No. It was only those children from areas with higher levels of unemployment. So was it higher than other areas or compared to another time period? Not clear. Were the children still living in higher than normal unemployment areas at the time the study tracked them? Also not clear if anyone controlled for that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-size: 9pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">“The risk for being arrested, joining a gang, smoking pot, stealing, drinking, and smoking were all slightly higher (by 6 to 17 percent) for kids who were born in or spent their first few years in areas with high unemployment rates, even if their families were wealthy or not unemployed -- and even though the U.S. economy was </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">well on the way to recovery</span><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> by 1997, when the teens surveyed were exhibiting their less-than-stellar behavior”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-size: 9pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">"It basically went across all socioeconomic strata," Ramanathan said. Since the increase in risky behavior wasn't limited to one area of the country or one socioeconomic class, "From a national level, it seems like everyone is affected," she added.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Anyone spot the two logical inconsistencies here? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">1.The risky behavior occurred where the birth was in an area of high unemployment, but because there were pockets of high unemployment in various metro areas, “it seems like everyone is affected?” Sorry, no. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s a contradiction. The speaker mentions a specific population among whom the behavior was observed and in the enxt breath says, “everyone.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My mother says, “never say never.” I say “never say EVERYONE!” Once you say that, you subject yourself to the now <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>famous White Swan counterfactual. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">You can’t get there from those data. It’s a problem in specific areas where unemployment is high – so that means focusing on those high unemployment areas for public policy not lining up kids by age cohort and saying, “Born in 1980? Uh-oh. You’re in trouble.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">2. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The conclusion does not follow from the evidence. They are using inductive reasoning (poorly) to arrive at a conclusion not supported by the data. It’s also referred to in statistics as making claims, “</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(statistics)"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">outside the range of observation</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;">.” Think about water. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine we observe water while we heat it from 33 degrees Farenheit to 37 degrees Fahrenheit. Water was a liquid. Can we then conclude that if we continue to heat the water to, say, 300 degrees Fahrenheit the water will still be a liquid? Obviously not. However, without observing water boil assuming that water remains a liquid would be what a researcher might hypothesize, but that would be pure conjecture and obviously wrong. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">3. And The Kicker – It MAY assign the wrong DIMENSION to the problem (of course this is my opinion here but it’s just as likely to be true as anything else) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; line-height: 115%;">“For every 1 percentage point below the mean regional unemployment rate, kids in affected areas had a 9 percent higher chance of using marijuana, a 7 percent higher chance of smoking tobacco, and a 6 percent higher chance of drinking when they were teenagers. Also higher: Gang affiliation (9 percent), petty theft (6 percent), major theft (11 percent), and the chance of getting arrested (17 percent). More serious problems -- like gun violence, assault, destroying property, and abusing hard drugs -- were not affected by higher unemployment rates.” </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; line-height: 115%;"></span>STOP. DO NOT PASS TO ANY CONCLUSION. DO NOT COLLECT TENURE FOR PUBLISHING NONSENSE. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">“1 percentage point below the regional average.” So that means areas that were the bottom of the region? Aren’t those areas always likely to have the problems associated with high unemployment? Aren’t those also going to have the problem of a lower level of educational attainment among the populace? Higher dropout rates, etc. Greater drug use among parents? If you’re born in the inner city in the US, it’s not about when, it’s about WHERE. The public policy implication is not based on birth cohort, it’s based on whether you are more likely to be born into poverty! Since people more likely to be in poverty or in high unemployment areas tend to more vulnerable economically, maybe those areas get hit even harder than the rest of the areas. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Did they correlate high unemployment at other times? Is the leading variable actually unemployment? Not sure. Think about places which experienced a temporary increase in unemployment and then improved vs. certain US cities that have never recovered from factories closing, etc. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">So the best part? Here comes insult to the children and the guilt trip for the working parents.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The insult and guilt trip come from the journalist and other studies looped together in a haphazard and simplistic manner suggesting the writer used Google only as her primary reference tool. Therefore, it’s pure bs editorializing. For example, she assumes the children born during those times were more likely to be unwanted pregnancies! How dare she.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Speculating that a child is unplanned (and therefore unwanted – which on its own is a huge leap) is a severe and horrible thing to do. So children born in 2009, during a recession, during a dip in births, should assume that they were unplanned? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The guilt trip then assumes that parents forced into the workplace aren’t available “during children’s early years” is a contradiction (these were areas of HIGHER unemployment – so that makes no sense). The lack of affordable childcare in this country is a social issue (and a major factor in the US’s ability to compete in a global marketplace, but I digress) that does not support the findings of this study. The author places a judgment that children from working parents do not fare as well as other children. Not so. </span><a href="http://www.gettingto5050.com/facts.htm"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">In fact, data show that children in quality childcare fare no different form children who were cared for at home and were more school ready to boot</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;">. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">What a load of horse manure…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-29279895408879077922012-05-12T07:39:00.001-07:002012-05-12T07:39:16.998-07:00Happy Mother's Day - Time Magazine Can See Me In A Hot PlaceIt's been over a year since I've managed to write anything here. This morning as I woke up around four am because I was worrying about something at work that is entirely out of my control (as I am oft to do), I followed some of the coverage of the <u>Time</u> magazine cover of a mother with her breast in the mouth of her three-year-old son. Is he actually feeding? Is she neurotic for breastfeeding a three-year-old? I have no idea. More importantly, I don't CARE.<br />
<br />
People are up in arms - all camps (e.g. "eww, gross vs. totally natural", "Dr. Sears is nut vs. Dr. Sears is a hero", "Boy will be messed up vs. Boy will be well-adjusted"). It's not that I don't fall into some of these camps, it's just that it's irrelevant to most other people. I can only speak for myself but I think it's hard enough just getting through the day, trying the best I can, within the confines of who I am and who my child is. I can figure out what good parenting is or isn't without some editorial team telling me. "Are you mom enough?" You bet, Time. Mom enough to shout, I'm NOT BUYING.<br />
<br />
Turns out, Time is just causing a stir to get us to buy magazines. However, something more insidious is afoot. The media is fueling a much more hostile tenor in our cultural dialogue and forcing people into extreme camps. Enough already. It's bad enough that we do this with political discourse, but for heaven's sake parenting is hard enough what without all this chatter.<br />
<br />
This Mother's Day, my gift to all mothers everywhere it to tell Time et. al. to "Drink a Nice Warm Cup of Shut the Hell Up!" Join me. Don't buy the magazine. When someone asks you your opinion say, "All parents love their children and do the best they can as they believe it to be." Then, practice your greatest mom skill, the well-developed raised eyebrow look of death that says, "Don't even think about it..."<br />
<br />Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-71284712989359188892011-09-12T11:22:00.000-07:002011-09-12T21:36:28.812-07:00Yet Again...Educated otherwise smart people are immune to logic!Vaccine refusal parents, "Please stop! You're hurting me." That's what we tell out two-year-old to say when another child comes after her so she doesn't bite them. Of course, nobody likes a biter and the behavior is unacceptable but who knows what icky things the bitee may be carrying. See, here in Northern California, we are home to a specific breed of moron who is out to harm everyone else's children. In Forbes, we see another article showing how people refuse to vaccinate their children. The statistics by county make me want to vomit. I understand the counties with a lower population of English speakers who may have difficulty accessing vaccines, but then we have places that are basically where "rich white people" live. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/vaccine_exemptions_in_california_threate.php">http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/vaccine_exemptions_in_california_threate.php</a><br />
<br />
They commit crimes against logic and science everyday that they send their unimmunized petri-dish spawn to schools where children with compromised immune systems and newborn siblings attend. For shame.<br />
<br />
Now Forbes is reminding us that there is more evidence showing that the MMR shot does not cause autism. Period. Yet this stupidity persists. Next time someone at your playground tells you they are using the Sears vaccine schedule ask them why they decided that arbitrary is better than scientific rigor. They are not really your friends, they are putting your children in danger. <a href="http://sg.news.yahoo.com/anti-vaccine-activists-apparently-immune-science-161557136.html">http://sg.news.yahoo.com/anti-vaccine-activists-apparently-immune-science-161557136.html</a><br />
<br />
Happy Moron Monday everyone!Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-53001965109499431342011-08-15T09:02:00.000-07:002011-08-15T09:04:10.742-07:007.1 Percent Of Marin Parents Refuse To Inoculate Their Children - News Story - KTVU San Francisco<a href="http://www.ktvu.com/news/28864686/detail.html#.TklCsVaiTAs.blogger">7.1 Percent Of Marin Parents Refuse To Inoculate Their Children - News Story - KTVU San Francisco</a> <br />
<br />
Irrational, stupid or lazy? It doesn't matter but it goes to show how the anti-expert mindset has taken hold. Guess what? Wiping down the swings with purell is futile if your child gets measles. Grrrrrr!Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-72234301483029556992011-04-04T22:30:00.000-07:002011-04-16T12:48:29.264-07:00Statgrrl Features - Books ALL Working Moms Must ReadI must apologize for being completely off of the grid for over a month. My day job has been in peak season and I have been flitting about the country and missing StatBaby quite more than I expected to. Also, StatDog is on chemo (Yes, you read that right. I made the choice with the full knowledge that I am completely irrational when it comes to the ones I love.) At any rate there has been the usual onslaught of BS stats but I haven't even had time to deal with them other than to write myself notes that say things like, "BS on page A4 of the Journal", only to find the post-it five days later buried at the bottom of my laptop bag. As in all things, context is everything.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>I thought about some things that might be fun for everyone. So, I have assembled the StatGrrl reading list. The list is called, "Working Mommy Must Reads." It comes in no particular order:</div><div><br />
</div><div>When you think that it's just you...</div><div><u>Just Let Me Lie Down: Necessary Terms for the Half-Insane Working Mom</u> by: Kristen van Ogtrop.</div><div>"Sisterhood of the black, lightweight wool pants: The tribe of working mothers who are united in their reliance upon the just-right pair of pants that can be worn for three seasons, at least once a week, year in and year out."</div><div><br />
</div><div>When you are this close to giving up all those years of education, promotions, late nights working on presentations and give in to some bizarre thing called "guilt"...</div><div><u>Getting to 50/50 by:</u> Sharon Meers and Joanna Strober</div><div>Dual career couples have pretty strong marriages and can eventually retire! Plus, there is NO data to show that kids in daycare perform differently than kids who aren't.</div><div><br />
</div><div>When you are comparing yourself to "Perfect Mommy" (as if you don't know what I mean)...</div><div><u>The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined All Women</u> by: Susan Douglas</div><div>"...when our kids say, "but all the other kids are doing it," we laugh in their faces. But when the magazines suggest, "All the other moms are doing this, are you?" we see ourselves being judged by the toughest critics out there..."</div><div><br />
</div><div>When in search of perfect devastating pithy prose...</div><div><u>Gut Symmetries</u> by: Jeanette Winterson</div><div>"Matter: A witticism. At a sub-atomic level, that which has a tendency to exist."</div><div>"It remains that a woman with an incomplete emotional life has herself to blame, while a man with no time for his heart just needs a wife." </div><div><br />
</div><div>When what someone said in a meeting is absurd, but you can't pinpoint why...</div><div><u>Crimes Against Logic</u> by: Jamie Whyte</div><div>"...my purpose here is to stop you from believing in another right that you really do not have, namely, the right to your own opinions."</div><div><br />
</div><div>The list goes on and on. For me, I know that the statistical reporting of journalists is only enough to make me irrational some of the time. So for that, I thank the above authors and my daughter. She shows me everyday that it's not about me and my performance as a mother. She is unique; a person already unto herself, with goals, talents, a sense of humor and a sense of justice and fairness. She is not yet two. This isn't my "work". This is who she is. No study can ever begin to explain the definition of children, "unexploded potential".</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div></div>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-83599915110187407012011-02-12T06:18:00.000-08:002011-02-12T06:18:42.353-08:00Oh boy! Stat Baby is going to be a a fatty! Healthday and Babycenter are AT IT AGAIN!!!Thanks to all of you for your understanding during a rather long absence since my last posting. I've been devoting time to my employment outside of the home (there, no one feels badly about that term I hope).<br />
<br />
Monday morning, bright and early - my weekly "Scare the mother and make her feel guilty" email from my friends at Babycenter arrives right on schedule. The news to smack me down as I try to prepare for meetings with my biggest and most important client was,<br />
"<a href="http://www.babycenter.com/204_the-more-moms-work-the-heavier-their-kids-get-says-study_10346731.bc">The more moms work, the heavier their kids get, says study</a>."<br />
<br />
<b>Part I: The headline and the article</b><br />
<br />
Any mother who works (I am assuming they mean paid employment in or outside the home) should assume that the more she does, the heavier her child will be. Taken to it's logical conclusion, Stat Baby should be the size of a house by now.<br />
<br />
Now, let's see what the article says the study says. This is, of course, likely to be different from what the study ACTUALLY says. Ah the perils of allowing undereducated writers report on things that they can't understand because their reading comprehension and awareness of the scientific method are non-existent.<br />
<br />
The study didn't say much because a study author has to use OTHER data to justify her "conclusion."<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">Surprisingly, there was no evidence that the increase in BMI was linked to more TV viewing, a decrease in physical activity, or more time spent unsupervised.The researchers concluded that it may be changes in children's eating and sleeping patterns (factors that were not included in the data) that account for the BMI changes. "While we weren't able to identify any specific environmental factors, it's clear from other research that nutrition and sleep are important," she said. "So, one possible policy implication is to do more to help working parents find quick and easy ways to prepare healthy foods."</span></blockquote>Eating and sleeping patterns were not included in the dataset but the conclusion it that eating and sleeping patterns account for the change. Shut the front door. These people are a classic case of a hypothesis desperately trying to find data (not the other way around).<br />
<br />
The quote from the article says that the data showed no relationship between the time spent viewing tv or decreased activity. Yet the researcher says in the interview,<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">The effect was even greater among children in fifth and sixth grades. "It is possible that because fifth and sixth graders generally have more independence and less adult supervision over their time use and food choices than third graders, maternal employment precipitates poorer food choices and more sedentary activity," the authors wrote.</span></blockquote>You can't have it both ways. The data showed no evidence surrounding decreased activity (is that not what sedentary means?), yet the researcher insists on using this to explain the difference. How about spurious correlation?<br />
<br />
Mommy works. Mommy wants to do the best for her child. Mommy sees headline that says she's making her child fatter by the minute each time she takes a conference call. Mommy CLICKS. Babycenter has a unique pageview and traffic to click on the ads on their site. But in the back of her head, Mommy doubts. Mommy worries. Mommy is one step closer to giving it all up.<br />
<br />
Not me. I say, "This author is full of it. I have work to do."<br />
<br />
<b>Part II: What other factors WERE NOT examined?</b><br />
<br />
<ol><li>Did Daddy work? If so, what were his hours like? Nope.</li>
<li>What was the income level of the family? Nope.</li>
<li>What was the mother's highest level of education attained? Nope.</li>
<li>What type of food was being served? Nope</li>
</ol>This all happens "below the fold." Hide the reason for skepticism and increase the guilt quotient. Try accessing this sheer and utter nonsense on a mobile device. You see the headline, scan first paragraph and move on with your day.<br />
<br />
<b>Part III: Where I get to indulge my fascination with the concept of "average" child.</b><br />
<br />
About the danger of averages:<br />
<br />
The study says for the AVERAGE child at grade three there is in increase in weight of about 1.5 lbs over what is "expected" at that age. DING, DING, DING...BS alarm bell.<br />
What is an average child, anyway? What is the distribution surrounding the mean in this case? Do boys and girls vary in the timing of growth cycles at this age? The average is a dangerous concept. The MEDIAN height of a child of 8 years is 129 centimeters according to the growth chart provided <a href="http://www.halls.md/chart/girls-height-w.htm">here</a>. The 5th percentile is 119 centimeters. The 95th percentile is 149 centimeters. So the vast majority of 8 year-old-girls are between 45 and 54 inches tall. That's 9 inches or 2/3 of a ft. That's not really a narrow window and many children are not at average. However, if my population has 100 children in it and 75 of them weigh 60 lbs and 25 weigh 15 lbs, the average child weighs 48.75 lbs and looks nothing like ANY child in the population.<br />
<br />
I have an acquaintance who wanted to live in a city, her husband wanted to live on a rural farm. They live in a McMansion, in a suburb. They are both miserable. Good compromise are rarely rarely found dead center of two extremes.Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-8420149800361875592011-01-31T16:51:00.000-08:002011-01-31T16:53:26.873-08:00Science blogging in theory and practice: Who writes health news?This is fantastic work looking into the media, journalists and the quality of their reporting. HIGHLY recommend it!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://survivingmyphd.blogspot.com/2010/11/who-writes-health-news.html?spref=bl">Science blogging in theory and practice: Who writes health news?</a>: "In times of financial difficulties, health reporters are usually the first to be let go. This is especially true if they actually know somet..."Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-1797683594637750682011-01-27T13:31:00.000-08:002011-01-27T22:10:20.997-08:00Children of divorce more likely to have suicidal ideation? Reporting for good rather than guilt.Why are reports on study results utterly deviod of perspective? Why do writers play a guilt card, when with a little bit of thought, they could do A LOT of good for the most vulnerable members of our society?<br />
<br />
Babble reports today about a study in Canada that shows <a href="http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2011/01/27/study-says-divorce-linked-to-suicidal-thoughts-but-may-say-more-about-boys/">children of divorce are more likely to have suicidal thoughts as adults and it's worse for boys</a>. The title is not altogether that misleading. It is a pretty basic, "Study Says Children of Divorce May Have Suicidal Thoughts as Adults." It's actually funny because ALL children may have suicidal ideations as adults so why would the children of divorce be any different. The title is a truism and a tautology. Queue logic lesson music...<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">I</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">n logic, a truism is a statement that in and of itself is true but because it is couched with words like "may" and "under certain conditions". Under the right conditions, pig fly, but those conditions don't occur very often so it's not really that exciting a development. Headlines do this all of the time (so they can't be held against a mirror of actual truth value).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">A tautology, on the other hand is a proposition that is true by definition. Some philosophers debate whether tautologies are truisms, but it's not relevant for th discussion here. A tautology is a proposition which is true by definition or identity. Definitions are great examples. In this article since ALL children grown up to be adults and many adults have suicidal thoughts, the idea that children of divorce having suicidal thoughts is neither surprising nor informative.</span><br />
<br />
Anyway, logic lesson over. What bugs me about this is the FEAR factor. If you divorce, you are putting your adult son at risk of suicide and suicidal ideation. What's missing in the context of this article?<br />
<br />
The incidence rate is NOT discussed. Is it 2x more, 1x more .0000001X more? Give us a sense of HOW this compares to adult men in general? What about adjusting for the custodial parent? Do boys who live with their fathers have the same rate of these problems as boys who live with their mother? Could it have to do with the higher incidences of poverty among children of divorce? Poverty is correlated with many problems as well.<br />
<br />
The blogger than speculates away about how boys aren't encouraged to express their feelings and therefore bottle them up causing them to be suicidal later in life. Whatever, a theory looking for a study as far as I'm concerned. Can't you hear perfect mommy on the playground, "Not only did she once give her child, gasp, formula, now she's divorcing...the boy has no chance. Tsk. tsk..." This demon woman lives in my head. She IS irrational and I tell her to "shut up" at least five times a day lately. (Statgrrl loves logic because it reminds her that she can identify irrationality, name it, and make it go away, at least for a little while). When it comes to Statbaby, I confess that I am completely irrational.<br />
<br />
As if people in a struggling marriage and children don't have enough to worry about. Think about the domestic violence victim here. Terrified to leave (because we see that some are killed AFTER they leave, not before), in a state of constant stress and battered self-esteem. Did this just tell them to stick it out for one more day? I don't know. But if one person suffers even one extra beating because they were trying to stay in it for the kids, there's a problem here.<br />
<br />
Personal note about StatGrrl: <b>I have worked with victims of domestic violence. They suffer silently among us every day. Acknowledging their existence and giving them some context (your son MAY have a slightly elevated risk of suicide but that risk is still lower than being struck by lightening- not sure about that since the article doesn't give me that context) would be the first step in using reporting for good, rather than guilt. These people are living on the edge literally, the article isn't dangerous per se. It is however, devoid of sensitivity.</b>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-28767822768573364472011-01-20T10:18:00.000-08:002011-01-20T10:18:52.989-08:00Healthday anti-vax propaganda --Parents believe the MMR Autsim Link and then a third party PAC makes sure you still question rationality<a href="http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2011/01/20/slightly-more-than-half-of-americans-say-vaccines-dont-cause-autism-poll_print.html">Slightly More than Half of Americans Say Vaccines Don't Cause Autism 18% Don't Trust MMR Vaccine and 30% are Undecided</a><br />
<br />
Seriously? Have 18% of American adults lost their minds? Probably. I want to skip my tirade about how dangerous this belief system is (based on questioning result after result by claiming conflicts of interest on the part of researchers). Not to mention that it's poor logic.<br />
<br />
Time to look at how badly the reporting screwed up the numbers. In all surveys, there is a margin of error. What was it here? No idea. Went to Harris interactive and they can't seem to figure one out. Sooo... 18%? Who knows. If the margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. So could be 13%? Could be 23%? Whatever. Poor reporting. Also, isn't there some belief that at any given point in time 20% of American are mentally ill? 18% anti-vaxx, 20% mentally ill... if only... but I try not to commit crimes against logic.<br />
<br />
At the very bottom of their tables, they offered some commentary/disclaimers about the survey, (they pay their sample and have to "adjust for" propensity to be online, propensity to respond to a survey, age, race, education level and income to make sure that the sample looks like the American public. Gimme a break. That's A LOT of adjusting.<br />
<br />
Here's their explanation,<br />
<blockquote>"All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words "margin of error" as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.</blockquote><blockquote>Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated."</blockquote>Lame. The survey was not meant to be scientific and was not a randomized sample. Fair enough, but it garnered a LOT of press.<br />
<br />
So here's the SCARY PART. Healthday. at it again, does not get a quote from the researchers, but from an unrelated third party (remember <a href="http://statgirlskewer.blogspot.com/2010/11/and-on-to-breastfeeding-propaganda.html">propaganda spotting</a>?). The third party talks all about how parents deserve more research. The NVIC sounds like a branch of the government doesn't it? It ISN'T! It's a third party lobbying organization that wants to increase the availability of exemptions for vaccines. Also, it wants people to "KNOW" all the side-effects of vaccines. This group is NOT interested in making sure that good science is done but rather stirring the anti-vax soup a little more.Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-5627494022654792902011-01-14T17:38:00.000-08:002011-01-14T18:59:07.029-08:00Breastfeeding paranoia - feed my child food? Oh the humanity!A new study published in the BMJ,suggests that it might be a<a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full"> good idea to supplement breastfeeding with food at four months</a>. This is pretty common advice from pediatricians anyway.<br />
Sierra, over at Babble's blog strollerderby is appalled. She almost sounds like an anti-vax person about vaccines when it comes to, wait for it...<a href="http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2011/01/14/breast-is-still-best/">FEEDING YOUR BABY - Food</a>.<br />
First what the study does NOT say: Stop breastfeeding at 4 months. You MUST feed solids to your child at 4 months. Breastmilk is bad.<br />
<br />
What it DOES say:<br />
The official policy in the UK to advise mothers to breastfeed exclusively for six months may have been entered into too quickly and should be reconsidered in light of some new evidence. Iron is crucial to brain development and we should ensure that children are getting enough. Also, it calls into question the idea that breast milk prevents allergies (which has NEVER been proven by the way).<br />
<br />
I remember the day my pediatrician told me to buy baby vitamins because breast milk probably wan't giving my daughter enough iron (I think, I was too sleep deprived and furious with the evil lactation consultant who made me feel like a failure and a bad person). It was one of the most eye-opening moments of my short time as a parent.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, I take issue with the way Sienna interprets weaning. It has a very clear meaning to her - ceasing to breastfeed altogether. In the study, it means adding solid foods regardless of continuing to breastfeed. She claims this is wrong. I claim that the UK often has words with different meanings in the US (even "pants"). Her complaint is a rather US centric viewpoint and raises an eyebrow given her progressive views about breastfeeding. Actually, views about breastfeeding that are unwilling to consider new evidence is as closed minded as the anti-vax , junk science folks are.<br />
<br />
What kills me is the vitriol with which the Breast is Best crowd is pouring over this thing. Food isn't poison. It's food. Big deal if some of the research was funded with food company money, maybe they want to know if the breastfeeding propaganda is all true.Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-29987102557726736952011-01-10T17:15:00.000-08:002011-01-10T17:15:09.317-08:00UPDATE: Well educated otherwise normal parents in CT are STILL listening to Jenny McCarthy for medical advice. Absurd.Today is crimes against logic day, or so it has been for me. Here's one reason why:<br />
<br />
An article in the Chicago Tribune today claims that, <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/hc-weir-autism-0107-20110107,0,2766053.column?obref=obnetwork">Many Connecticut Parents Of Autistic Children Convinced Of Vaccination Connection</a>.<br />
Why? Because people like Jenny McCarthy "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 18px;">"have a lot of credibility with parents." </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><b>Crime 1: Ad Hominem Fallacy</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">This is a belief system, pure and simple. It stems from a culture that is at present profoundly anti-expert. Parents in this article state that they believe that the recent claims of fraud in the Lancet study have suspect timing and therefore must be discarded. That's a logical error. It even has a name "attacking the motive" which is a subset of an entire class of logical fallacies called "ad hominem" attacking the person, (i.e. he may a creep, but that is neither necessary nor sufficient to say that he is wrong). </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><b>Crime 2:</b> <b>Failure to take a position to it's logical conclusion</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">One of the mothers is apparently incapable of higher order thinking. She claims that she has not had any of her children vaccinated. However, were she to engage in international travel, then she would consider vaccination. Ummm...so let me get this straight. You live in a bubble in CT. Your children play with other children in this bubble. Since your children will not leave said bubble they will never be exposed to icky things like polio. What about your children's friends? We live in a highly mobile society with these cool big bird-like devices called airplanes. They go to places where icky things like polio live and bring things back to. So when your children's friends bring back something icky to your bubble, don't come crying to me.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">It seems to me that this anti-expertism and conspiracy theory susceptibility are a function of a country where science is not taught well in even the "good" schools. The most destructive part of this entire mindset is that , "we all have a right to our opinion." Well, when my child, or any other for that matter is sickened as a result of your ill-conceived right to your opinion, it is no longer a right, but a menace.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best, "Your rights end where my nose begins." And my nose would prefer NOT to contract measles, thank you very much.</span></span>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-55218857094788275022011-01-05T13:42:00.000-08:002011-01-05T13:42:25.585-08:00Breastfeeding propaganda train rolls through again... Breastfed babies have stronger legs as teenagers...Ah babble. The <a href="http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2011/01/05/breast-milk-and-teen-health-and-fitness/">strollerderb</a>y blog is a new one to visit for ridiculous reporting and focus on studies that a) don't matter much to begin with and b) don't even hint at causality.<br />
<br />
The title was actually pretty darn funny, "<a href="http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2011/01/05/breast-milk-and-teen-health-and-fitness/">Nice legs! Thanks, I was breastfed."</a><br />
<br />
So, researchers in Spain found that when they tested teenagers at tasks like jumping, the ones who were breastfed jumped higher. Ergo, stronger legs. Apparently this followed a study that only showed this link in boys. This is killing me. Even if the ONLY variable that could be teased out was that the child was breastfed, how did they minimize the effects of diet, daily routine, genetics and exercise habits? I cannot believe that there aren't other things that the populations have in common than having been breastfed as infants. How do we rule out other causes when we compare teenagers to their conditions as newborns? Also, just in case you hadn't been made to feel like a guilty failure enough already by the breast-is-best-holier-than-thou crowd, now we add that your child will have weak legs. REALLY? Please. Can't we fund something that might help someone, like finding cures fir childhood illnesses? These studies are funded because they suit an agenda. Well, go sell your do-this-or-else somewhere else.Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-45523741957048698112010-12-28T21:17:00.000-08:002010-12-28T21:17:14.221-08:00Back from break...Dr. Oz made me throw my remote at the tv! High heels CAUSE osteoarthritis...Happy Holidays to all who are/have just celebrated. Mine was a whirlwind of activity with both my family and my husband's family joining us here in San Francisco. After I said good-bye to my in-laws tonight, I settled onto my couch thinking, "I could use some mindless time." Lucky me. There was <a href="http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/tuesday-dr-oz-show">Dr. Oz to wreck it for me</a>. The description on the listing was enough to make me want to skewer a lot of things. It began with artificial sweeteners, but I didn't make it far enough into the show without becoming enraged to watch it. Fear sells, kids. Fake causal relationships can stoke that fear...<br />
<br />
The segment I am skewering has the title, "Do high heels cause arthritis?" Naturally, for full effect, the headline was projected on a screen, on the back of his set with suitably ominous font. The answer according to a researcher at Northwestern was actually the answer to a different question. She did a study about the effects of heel height on knee joints and her findings are not altogether that surprising. Heels higher than 2" are correlated with damage to the knees. However, there is no way to say how often one would have to wear these to completely trash their knees. Fair enough. Next we had a podiatrist talk about a woman who was x-rayed while walking in heels of different heights. The 4" heels had her "out of alignment." Again not surprising. But then she said, keeping the body out of alignment CAUSES osteoarthritis. Is it a contributing factor? Perhaps.<br />
<br />
CAUSES osteoarthritis? Give me a break. Apparently she seems to have forgotten her science training. And then they moved on to hocking shoe insets (one of which was made of flax seed - how many futures contracts on flax does OZ own?). I kid you not.<br />
<br />
Buy this STUFF, if you can't give up your "ADDICTION" (yes, he used that very loaded word) to high heels. Otherwise, based on the CAUSAL relationship we FAILED to show, you WILL get osteoarthritis. I am off to have a glass of wine in 4" heels, without a flax-seed-padded insert. I'll be sure to report back when I have an osteoarthritis diagnosis.Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-13819835028334692682010-12-17T10:04:00.000-08:002011-01-05T20:53:15.858-08:00As much as I wish it were true, Fox news makes you misinformed, not stupid.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_918042503"></span><span id="goog_918042504"></span>"<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/extended-exposure-to-fox-news-may-be-detrimental-to-your-intelligence-2010-12#comment-4d0ba242ccd1d5f4570b0000">Study: Watching Fox News Makes you Stupid</a>"<br />
<br />
I love Business Insider, I must admit it. I have a big old Stat Girl middle-school-googlie-eyed-crush on Business Insider. That being said, since I'm a rational Stat Girl, I am afraid that I must be fair and skewer their reporting of studies too.<br />
The headline says, "stupid". I don't know what study would ever say that. "Misinformed" does not mean stupid. It means being in possession and belief of information that is false or inaccurate. When you spew misinformation, you may SOUND stupid but your IQ hasn't necessarily changed. If you didn't question your beliefs to begins with, well, that's another problem entirely.<br />
<br />
What we find is that Mark Harwood's headline was even worse. It said, "<a href="http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/">Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid</a>. He used "confirmed". GRRRRRRR. "Confirmed" and "causes" are as misused by writers as "I love you" is by that guy at the bar trying to get you to come home and sleep with him.<br />
<br />
The study's flaw is not that it was run by a not-exactly apolitical organization, it is that it concludes that a causal relationship travels in one direction (let's not even get into whether there is a causal relationship at all). The HUGE problem with the study was that it tested the beliefs of FOX news viewers. It ASSUMES that their beliefs (as mistaken and idiotic as they may be) are CAUSED by watching Fox news. What if people with idiotic belifes are attracted to Fox news and watch it more and more? (Like depressed people taking mind-altering drugs). This is as likely as the reverse. Sorry kids, Fox news may have an audience more likely to be misinformed but we have NO right to say it's Fox's fault (AS MUCH AS I REALLY REALLY WANT TO). Seriously, could a smart person really watch Fox news for more than a few seconds? Doubt it.<br />
THERE IS A CORRELATION but that is not causality. And who knows if "stupid" or "watches Fox news" is the dependant variable in this case (then again, not sure it matters).Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-78438390917053612092010-12-16T09:53:00.001-08:002010-12-16T09:53:45.599-08:00Autism Research: Breakthrough Discovery on the Causes of Autism<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/227124/thumbs/s-AUTISM-RESEARCH-large.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/227124/thumbs/s-AUTISM-RESEARCH-large.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br/>I am not a fan of anecdotal evidence. To be clear, CAUSE is a very specific word and it has been used incorrectl<wbr/>­y and/or deceptivel<wbr/>­y in the title of this article.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://statgirlskewer.blogspot.com/2010/12/autism-cause-identified-no-not-really.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://sta<wbr/>­tgirlskewe<wbr/>­r.blogspot<wbr/>­.com/2010/<wbr/>­12/autism-<wbr/>­cause-iden<wbr/>­tified-no-<wbr/>­not-really<wbr/>­.html</a><br/><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html">Read the Article at HuffingtonPost</a>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-1101731370207307532010-12-16T09:48:00.000-08:002011-01-10T20:37:35.934-08:00Autism Cause Identified! (no not really, just a bad headline). How to spot a nutbag...<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html">Autism Research: Breakthrough Discovery on the Causes of Autism</a><br />
<br />
This skewereing will explain how to spot a nutbag. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Step 1</b>: Look for for the word "<b>CAUSE</b>" where it does not belong.<br />
<br />
Quackery, chicanery, or sell more booksism? Mark Hyman, a praciticing physician and therefore expert on autism (note not a neuroscientist, epidemiologist or peer-reviewed researcher) tells us that a recently published study in <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/">JAMA</a> identifies the cause of autism as a mitochondrial disorder. And, what causes the mitochondrial disorder?...Mercury (queue the anti-vaccine wackadoos). Help me please.<br />
<br />
He used the word <b>"CAUSES"</b> in the headline. No one knows what casues autism. A potential mechanism for the disorder has been proposed. But this nutbag seems to KNOW the cause because he identified it in the anecdotal evidence of a little boy named Jackson. Causality is notoriously difficult to prove. Is so difficult in fact that most people either prove a contradiction or disprove the opposite of something (Remember rejecting the null hypothesis?).<br />
<b>Step 2</b>: Look for poignant anecdotes.<br />
The story of Jackson is personal and interesting but it is an anecdote. This is a little boy saved by fish oil according to Dr.Hyman. Maybe, who knows. Maybe the fish oil helped, maybe he was randomly "cured" at the same time he started taking fish oil. WHO KNOWS? <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/">The Huffington Post </a>doesn't.<br />
<br />
So, why is anecdotal evidence so powerful? Actually, it goes to some psychology. There have been some tests done in behavioral economics that talk about why human beings are better equipped to help an individual (and are more moved to help an individual) than a group. <a href="http://danariely.com/">Dan Airley</a> uses the example of the American Cancer Society using a network of cancer survivors to appeal to our sense of helping an individual. That is, one person who we know. Look at Save the Children. They don't have you look at the staggering, heartbreaking numbers of starving children, they use one child. Sadly, the quacks do this too. So do the anti-vaccine groups. <br />
<br />
So what should we do? We MUST recognize that we are susceptible to the power and emotional pull of anecdotal evidence and return from "emotion mind" to "reason mind." If that fails you, look up pictures of <a href="http://www.vaccineinformation.org/photos/measarc001.jpg">individual children with polio or measle</a>s. That'll send you to the doctor for a vaccine, STAT.Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-73439464689597494932010-12-14T13:42:00.000-08:002010-12-14T15:32:19.828-08:00Kids aren't "stuck" on sugary cereals ... or no kidding, this is a slow news week isn't it?"<a href="http://www.babycenter.com/204_kids-not-so-stuck-on-sugary-breakfast-cereals-study-finds_10343687.bc">Kids not so stuck on sugary breakfast cereals, study finds</a>"<br />
<br />
Oh Babycenter. Merry Christmas - turns out you don't have much to worry about with those diabetic-shock- inducing cereals after all. Not so fast. This study attempted to show that kids don't need sugary cereals to induce them to eat breakfast. THIS IS NOT NEWS. If kids are hungry, they will probably eat what's in front of them. That is why what's in the house is probably more important than what's advertised on tv (opinion alert - that's my opinion).<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">Digression:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">This one is just plain old poor writing. George Orwell writes about the importance of clear, concise writing in his classic <u><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Write-Penguin-Great-Ideas/dp/0143036351/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292355888&sr=1-1">Why I Write</a></u>. He reminds us that ALL writing can be and is political to some extent. even if the writer is siply trying to express something, the politics of the writer will insert itself through word choice, sentence structure and the desire for the reader to identify with the author and his/her text.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">End digression</span><br />
<br />
The author of this headline seems to be saying that, children aren't addicted to sugary cereals. At least that's what the headline says to me. The study doesn't show that AT ALL. The study took 91 children (yes, 91 and they were mostly minority children in a summer camp setting - no amount of inductive reasoning can get you to any generalizations about children in the U.S. as a whole) and offered some of them a choice of "Fruit Loops, Frosted Flakes and Cocoa Pebbles." The other group were offered "Cheerios, Rice Krispies and Kellogg's Corn Flakes." Guess what? Both groups ate their breakfast. We didn't test whether or not, left to their own devices, the children chose the sugary cereals over the less sugary cereals. I think that test could have given us a headline that said the kids weren't stuck on sugary cereals. But, in this case, the design was bizarre. The children were given a set of choices where they could eat a sugary cereal or a sugary cereal. Likewise, they could chose a low sugar cereal or a low sugar cereal.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;">This is basically saying that kids will eat what's in front of them. If that's the conclusion, which was mind blowing for those "</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">many parents [who] believe that if cereals aren't loaded with sweetness, kids won't eat them.," is the only advice, don't put sugar cereal in your child's bowl and your children will eat anyway? This is sad. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 15px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span">Not only did the methodology stink (sample was biased), also, the "test" and "control" groups didn't really answer a question with any useful information. The headline was deceitful because it tried entice someone to read an article about a terrible study with no REAL findings. Yay, Babycenter.com!!!!!! Everyday you add value. AS IF...</span>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-34498125454663435362010-12-09T12:54:00.000-08:002010-12-09T12:54:45.546-08:00I am "fit to be tied"... Cell phones harm the unborn? STOP THE BAD REPORTING!!!<a href="http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2010/12/08/cell-phones-behavioral-problems/">The actually said that cellphone use could harm the unborn!!!</a><br />
<br />
Babble.com, which purports to be for smart parents is full of it this time. The article's title asks,<br />
<a href="http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2010/12/08/cell-phones-behavioral-problems/">Is Your Cell Phone Hurting Your Unborn Child?</a>. (<i>As if</i> the writer isn't trying to imply that it does). Anyone who remembers Alicia Silvestone in <u>Clueless</u> circa 1995 can imply my tone here.<br />
<br />
Moms-to-be, all over the world just dropped their collective smartphones and recoiled in horror as this article told them that the conference call they just took is about to lead to behavioral problems for, WAIT FOR IT... THEIR UNBORN BABIES!!!!! This is disgusting. This is fear selling at its worst. AAAAnd this my dears, is BS!<br />
<br />
Here's where we find that the whole thing is a red herring, (below the fold, of course),<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Researcher Leeka Kheifets says that the association between cell phone use and behavioral problems isn’t all that strong and, because the mothers were self-reporting, the data cannot be considered completely reliable. However, she and her colleagues speculate that cell phone use might lead mothers to excessively secrete melatonin, which can impact her metabolism and potentially influence the brain development of the fetus.</span></blockquote>At this point we must stop to consider that the RESEARCHER said that the association isn't all that strong. End scene. If it's not strong, why are we reporting on it?<br />
<br />
Worse than that, they "speculate"s some causal power associated with melatonin. Nice try. Not buying it. And neither should anyone. What is particularly damaging here is that the authors feed on a mother's rational desire to protect her child to create an irrational fear.<br />
<br />
<b>How to spot a study deigned to scare the heck out of you even though the conclusion is weak and/or non-existent:</b><br />
<br />
<b>THE HEADLINE WILL BE WRITTEN IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION, </b><br />
as in "Is Your Cell Phone Hurting Your Unborn Baby?"<br />
Adrenaline of the 100lb-mom-lifts-bus-off-child variet kicks in. "Yes. Mustn't it? If they are writing about it..."<br />
<br />
Be assured the answer is more likely a relationship that is "not all that strong." Let me put it another way, "NO, there is not enough evidence to say anything about it..."<br />
-SG<br />
P.S. Don't get me started on the flawed nature of self-reported data...I'm just too tired to go there today.Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-50566630469399354822010-12-07T08:39:00.000-08:002010-12-07T08:50:39.478-08:00Did You Have a Nice Day on the Right Wing, Dear? Fox Confirms the Married Men Are "Nicer"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"></span><br />
<h2 class="entry-title" id="article-title" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; color: black; font-size: 31px; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: -1px; line-height: 34px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; position: static; vertical-align: baseline;"> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/12/07/married-men-nicer-heres/">"Married Men Are Nicer and Here's Why"</a></h2><div>Seriously. This title actually confuses a correlation (which I think is not really that surprising anyway) with fewer occurrences of anti-social behavior and likelihood of a male twin to be married. Ignoring the fact that this is not really a major aha moment (a##holes are less likely to marry) and therefore not really that interesting, the title assigns a CAUSE!! "Here's Why." They think they know why!!! 289 pairs of twin men and Fox can tell you "why". As my eighteen-month-old is fond of saying, "No;no;no;no;no;no;no!" Envision a little blond head wagging back and forth. Also, is someone who engages in fewer anti-social behaviors "nicer"? What does "nice" even mean? The English language has many words in it. It certainly has enough words to be more specific and descriptive than "nice."<br />
<br />
When anyone has a theory about why populations in a study behave differently, it is simply that, a theory. It is not the cause. It is not "the why." The writer in this case assigns an "explanation" to a set of data. In this case Fox decided that it was a data set in search of the family values crowd to explain what they believe they already know (marriage is good because it make people behave in a certain way). Give me a break!<br />
<br />
It gets better, in a paragraph that begins with the incorrect usage of the word "however", the reporter goes even further. According to the study, for those pairs in which one of the twins married during the observation period, "anti-social" behavior decreased. They don't tell us by how much. They don't tell us how many were in the sample. There was a questionable control group (the ones who didn't marry). What if twins behave differently in marriage than non-twins and those men behave worse after marrying? We're reaching beyond the relevant range here.<br />
Is this Fox's way of saying, "get those wild boys married, or anti-social behavior will destroy our country"? Give them a day to pass this on to some of their more insane commentators and it might be.<br />
<br />
This headline is beyond ridicule. It is FALSE. We don't really know why. Incidences of anti-social behavior decreased after the men married. We also don't know if men with fewer anti-social tendencies to begin with are more likely to marry, or marriage made them less anti-social. Honestly, I'm not sure that i care. One type of anti-social behavior was an episode of binge drinking. The difference between the two groups (1.3 occurrences and 0.7). So over the study period, the non-married men got drunk one extra time. Shocking. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
One other thing, the men who married during the study were OLDER when they married thatn they were at the outset of the study. Anyone think that age and maturity might have something to do with a reduction in "anti-social" behavior? Just wondering.<br />
<br />
We don't know why married men are "nicer" (or if they even "ARE" nicer). I repeat, WE DON'T KNOW WHY. And neither do you, Fox news.<br />
<br />
</div>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-69441485844962301292010-12-05T21:27:00.000-08:002010-12-06T08:21:17.534-08:00If you get divorced, your kids are 2x as likely to have a stroke...If you got divorced in the 1940s!!!!!Struggling in your marriage? Here's HealthDay and Babycenter to warn you...<br />
"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #40463c; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 23px; font-weight: 800;">Children of divorce face twice the risk of stroke as adults</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;">Mon, Nov 22, 2010 (HealthDay News) — Children of divorce appear to have more than double the lifetime risk for experiencing a stroke compared with those whose parents' marriage stays intact during their childhood, new research suggests."</div><div style="color: #40463c; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So, you're marriage is in trouble. You're having a rough time. Here comes Babycenter to make it that much easier to decide to stay in a marriage that you probably shouldn't or to feel so much guiltier and worse about what your decision to divorce is going to do to your children. That's what you need right about now, isn't it?</span></div><div style="color: #40463c; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">When you read all the way down, you see that the people with double the occurrence were people of children who were divorced in...WAIT FOR IT..."<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">1</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">930s, 1940s and 1950s." </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It's amazing to me that this is newsworthy. The study focused on Canadians in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American GERENTOLOGICAL Association. This is not for parents who might be divorcing today, this is for doctors of people over 60 who are trying to identify populations with stroke risk. If we assume that the profile of a child of divorce in 1935 is the same as now, we are making an error. It even has a name! <b>Extending the relevant range.</b></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #40463c; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 15px;">The best way to illustrate a relevant range is with water. Water, as it cools, becomes more dense. So from 38 degrees to 4 degrees centigrade, water molecules come closer together. So let's just ASSUME that that relationship continues down to two degrees. We might, since we didn't measure the density of water at two degrees. But we would be wrong. Ever notice how ice floats on top of liquid water? That's because water, unlike other substances is the most dense at 3.98 degrees centigrade <http://www.helium.com/knowledge/6620-the-temperature-at-which-water-is-most-dense>. </span></span></div><div style="color: #40463c; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 15px;">So if we assume that the children of divorces that occur in the 2010s will have the same increased likelihood for stroke as the children of divorce from the 1930s, 40s and 50s, we are looking outside of the relevant range. We can make NO assumptions about the likelihood of these children having a stroke over the course of their lifetime.</span></span></div><div style="color: #40463c; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 15px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="color: #40463c; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 15px;"><b>Long story short, Divorce is really difficult for everyone involved. It is a decision that I have anecdotal evidence telling me that most people don't make lightly. If you are considering the effects of getting divorced on your children, PLEASE focus on things other than their risk of stroke in their sixties. It's too far off and we don't know if it's correlated (don't get me started on causal). </b></span></span></div>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-76024288915824043102010-12-03T17:24:00.000-08:002010-12-05T11:11:19.090-08:00Why I Pick on Babycenter.com(not just because it's so easy)A little about Stat Girl. I am the mother of a beautiful, wonderful 18-month-old daughter who has brought more joy, more challenge and more meaning to my life than I ever could have imagined. Also, I am a full-time outside of the home professional; a consultant who works in the financial field. I have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy (yes, you read that correctly, an employed Philosophy major - turns out there's a lot of us and we're pretty darn good too <a href="http://www.clemson.edu/caah/philosophy/information/famous.html">http://www.clemson.edu/caah/philosophy/information/famous.html</a>). I have an MBA in Finance and Marketing. My brain did not fry from hormone overload when I gave birth (I was terrified that it might). More personal than all this is the fact I am in recovery from an Eating Disorder. As such, I take an SSRI every day. I took one every single day of my pregnancy and every single day that I breastfed. My daughter, according to a recent assessment, is ahead in almost all of her milestones except for "empathy" (I am smothering the snark about to rise from keyboard). When my daughter was 8 months old, I woke up from the "Do everything the experts say because you, as only a mere mother and not a baby professional, do not know what's best for your child". My BS meter started lighting up like a Christmas tree.<br />
<br />
The catalyst was a post on Babycenter.com that was emailed to me in my weekly , "How to be a better mother" email from Babycenter. It talked about the "delayed onset of breastmilk in mothers who took SSRIs". That hit me in a more personal way than most headlines. I read the article and it was flawed and DANGEROUS! Do you know what happens if you suggest to a fragile new mother, who is prone to depression (by the fact that she's on SSRIs to begin with) that she stop taking her pills? It's called Postpartum Depression and it's not pretty. So, I wrote to the kind folks at BabyCenter.com. Here's my note:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;">Dear Editors:</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;"> I have to wonder whether or not your posting of content from the Health Day news service ismerely interesting and attention grabbing. It is perhaps ill advised. I have noticed that the health day reports rarely cite any concern over study methodologies. A particular example is the one pager suggesting that use of SSRIs is associated with delayed onset of breast milk. Since so many mothers and expectant mothers are already weary of taking ANY medication for fear it will affect their child, the decision to continue on an anti-depressant medication is one that can be truly heart wrenching. While the mothers and mothers to be know that they are already at increased risk for post partum depression and other complications, they also know that the effects of some of these medicines aren't known. In a population predisposed to depression and the concomitant symptoms of increased feelings of guilt and anxiety, they may decide to cease or reduce medication. This study implies that a woman who takes SSRIs will have less success in breast feeding because the delayed onset of milk may require early formula feeding. Here is the rub, did this study control for maternal age at time of the birth, dosage of the SSRI, length of time on the SSRI, the version of the SSRI (some have much longer half lives than others? What about c section vs. vaginal birth? What about duration of labor and additional interventions? A HUGE influence on milk production is the mother's overall hydration level. Were these mothers monitored for their hydration levels? Furthermore, what was the control group? How was the SSRI variable isolated? Since none of these answers can be made in a short one pager, I must assume that, no, they probably weren't. Basically, this article will just make the decision to continue anti-depressant therapy (a decision that rightly belongs between a woman and the prescribing doctor when ALL factors of her situation are considered) even more difficult. If ONE woman falls victim to post partum depression as a result of the reporting in this story, it is one too many. Not ONCE in the article NOR in the "what can you do" section was the danger of discontinuing an anti-depressant without the supervision of a LICENSED medical professional mentioned. For a site that claims to be a place for mothers, I have to wonder how such a relevant issue went unmentioned.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;">Thank you,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;">Stat Girl (name edited, of course)</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;">San Francisco, CA</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;">Mother to Stat Baby (I'm </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;">actually </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;">going to start calling her that) - 8 months</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;">Here's the response:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Hi Stat Girl,<br />
<br />
Thank you for emailing BabyCenter with your thoughtful note. You make some good points - I will forward your email to our news editors. Thank you for your interest in BabyCenter!<br />
<br />
Heather<br />
Community Administrator</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION, EVER. Even after I wrote again:</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Heather,</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"> Thank you for forwarding my concerns. I am a bit trobled that there has been no additional response to my letter. Is it normally the policy of babycenter.com to simply reply "thanks for writing?". I have looked for any updates on PPD and have not seen much. However, I have noticed more coming from the wire service Reuters (which is at least a reputable news source). I am encouraging the new mothers who I know to read the reporting of studies via babycenter.com with a high degree of skepticism. Furthermore, in a survey that I was asked to take for babycenter.com, the survey seemed to be asking my degree of confidence in the information provided by the site. If your goal and value proposition is to be "the authority on the web for all matters baby-related", I have to question whether or not your content team is aware of what such a goal entails. If you are simply serving as a lead source for diapers.com, then I suppose catchy headlines are all that matters. For example, today's email blast has a link to an article about VBAC. It says, "Vaginal birth after C section may be safe." VBAC is VERY common. VBAC after multiple cesarians being safe, however is newsworthy. Making the lead link, "Vaginal birth after multiple C sections may be safe", seems like a more appropriate headline and does not imply that VBAC in <strong>general</strong> has heretofore been considered unsafe. I imagine that the click-through rate would be lower though.</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Thank you again for reading my thoughts and passing them on.</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Respectfully yours,</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Stat Girl</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">MORAL OF THE STORY: This is my small way to save us from this kind of psychological warfare. That may seem hyperbolic, but that's how it feels to me.</span></b></div><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></span>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-42730410780727020752010-11-29T16:10:00.000-08:002010-11-29T16:13:43.960-08:00More children have eating disorders than ever before, or, should we say more cases are being diagnosed and treated?<div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Happy Thanksgiving everyone! After all that food and fun, Healthday and Babycenter.com are back to remind us that when it comes to our children, now, more than ever there are more reasons to be terrified all day, everyday. Hyper-vigilance seems like the only answer. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. This post will illustrate the difference in literal meaning of <b>rate of incidence vs. rate of observation/diagnosis</b> (and it's a BIG one) and examine what I call the REALLY small denominator problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h1 style="color: #40463c; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 23px; font-weight: 800; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; position: relative;">"Rate of eating disorders in kids keeps rising </h1><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">Eating disorders have risen steadily in children and teens over the last few decades, with some of the sharpest increases occurring in boys and minority youths, according to a new report."</span><br />
<a href="http://www.babycenter.com/204_rate-of-eating-disorders-in-kids-keeps-rising_10343138.bc" style="color: #2198a6; text-decoration: none;">http://www.babycenter.com/204_rate-of-eating-disorders-in-kids-keeps-rising_10343138.bc</a><br />
<br />
My friends at Babycenter are back with a doosey. Eating disorders are among the most serious of mental illnesses and not to be trifled with. If you or a loved one are exhibiting any of the signs of an eating disorder as described here <a href="http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/eating-disorders/complete-index.shtml" style="color: #2198a6; text-decoration: none;">http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/eating-disorders/complete-index.shtml</a> , seek help immediately. Go directly to a qualified professional; Do not pass go; Do not collect $200. </div><div>Now that that's out of the way, back to the skewering.<br />
</div><div>According to this headline, more and more children have eating disorders every time we turn around. The evidence cited is a recent study that shows that , "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">hospitalizations for eating disorders jumped by 119 percent between 1999 and 2006 for kids younger than 12."</span></div><div><br />
</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b>RATE OF INCIDENCE AND RATE OF OBSERVATION</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So the correct headline is "Frequency of hospitalizations for eating disorders in kids increased." Definitionally, more children may have eating disorders, but that's not what we see here. The other thing is that we don't really know if the rate of INCIDENCE of eating disorders is on the rise. All we DO know is that more cases are being diagnosed, documented and treated. It could even be that eating disorders are less prevalent than before, but because of better reporting and diagnostic tools, the rate of OBSERVATION is increasing. The rate of incidence implies that the absolute rate of eating disorders in the entire population is X. The rate of OBSERVATION refers the number that were counted and classified as an INCIDENCE of an eating disorders in the entire population. So if Susie had anorexia nervosa in 1998, but was untreated and undiagnosed, she still HAD anorexia nervosa. The INCIDENCE of anorexia nervosa was one. However, the number of observations for Susie would be zero. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">What we see here is that more children are being hospitalized for eating disorders. This may not even be a bad thing. What if, in the past, children with eating disorders were not hospitalized and instead were under-treated? Couldn't that mean that children were dying, carrying their disease longer into adolescence and adulthood, remaining in a sub-clinical state of misery for untold periods of time? Now that's awful. While hospitalizing anyone for anything is serious, not treating an illness that should be treated by hospitalization shows much more serious systemic problems (ignorance and neglect on the part of adults, mostly). </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">On the other hand, maybe it's even worse. What if, in the past children were treated by mental health professionals and their pediatricians at an early phase and because of increasingly stringent and bizarre rules pertaining to health insurance plans limiting mental health benefits, children are having to reach death's door (literally) before they receive the treatment that they need? That's a different awful problem.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">On the third hand (foot, I guess), what if these children were being hospitalized with a different primary diagnosis? Perhaps they have other illnesses such as depression, severe abdominal distress, or anything else for that matter and the eating disorder was not considered the primary cause of the hospitalization? </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">And yet another foot, what if eating disorders weren't listed as the diagnosis code because some doctors knew that insurance would be more difficult to deal with? According to someone I know, in the 1950's many doctors admitted Mrs. Smith with acute appendicitis and performed an appendectomy at the same time as an abortion. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The <b>truth</b> is that we don't know if more children have eating disorders than in the past. We do know that more are being hospitalized at a young age with the primary reason for hospitalization being cited as an eating disorder.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">THE TINIEST OF PROBABILITIES AND THE REALLY SMALL DENOMINATOR PROBLEM</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The other disturbing part of this article is the idea that more and more boys and minorities are really seeing more eating disorders. Here we go again. Is it that these kids didn't have eating disorders, or that they went untreated and unreported? My guess is the latter, but I can only speculate because there is no base control to work form. But here's the more important lesson. the rate of anything occurring is a probability. That is a fraction reduced to 1 in X. A three fold increase sounds REALLY big but what if that is the increase from 1 in 1 Billion to 3 in 1 Billion? In the grand scheme of things, it's not a very significant change. It certainly wouldn't warrant a change in policy for the group that is 4x the population of the United States. (That's not to say those 3 cases aren't important, you aren't likely to come across the on or the three in your everyday life). </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">In this article we hear that the sharpest increase is for boys and minorities. Let's do the math.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;">"...experts estimate that between 0.8 to 14 percent of Americans generally have at least some of the physical and psychological symptoms of an eating disorder, according to the report.</div><div style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;">Boys now represent about 5 to 10 percent of those with eating disorders, although some research suggests that number may be even higher, said Lisa Lilenfeld, incoming president of the Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy and Action in Washington, D.C." </div><div style="color: #40463c; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b>Ooh - catch that the first paragraph and the second are using 2 different data sets. Yikes (that's a problem for another post).</b></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #40463c; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 1.3em;">If math makes your eyes </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;">glaze</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 1.3em;"> over skip to the BIG bold part for a summary...</span></span></b></div><div style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;">US population clock : </div><div style="line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">3</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">10,814,706</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">For simplicity let's split the difference between 0.8 and 14 and say 7%...</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">310,814,706 * 7% = 21,757,029</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">21,757,029 * 10% (high-end estimate for boys) = 2,175,703</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Let's just say that in the next year we saw 2,300,000 and the population stayed flat. the percentage increase would be (2,300,000-2,175,703)/2,175,703 = 5.7% increase.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Since non boys represent the rest of the eating disorders population is 21,757,029 * 90% = 19,581,326</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">If the same increase in CASES was seen there (about 124,297 CASES), we would see that there was an increase of (124,297/19,581,326) = 0.63%. </span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">5.7% vs. 0.63% HUGE difference but the same number of cases. So when you hear that the increase is sharper for boys this makes sense, they are starting off a much smaller base.</span></span><b style="color: red; font-size: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></b></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 24px;">If you sold one car today and two cars tomorrow, you had a 100% increase in the number of cars sold. The next day you sold three cars but you only have an increase of 50%, and so on... As the denominator increases the % change will continue to decrease.</span></span></b></div></div></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; border-collapse: collapse;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #40463c; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 1px; padding-bottom: 4px; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><br />
</div>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-65951412179729984772010-11-14T13:13:00.000-08:002010-11-14T14:04:45.361-08:00And we're back...Healthday tells us that social class affects your ability to get well if you have depression...<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Please, someone hand me a frying pan to smack myself with. Maybe then I could lose enough brain cells to fail to notice the logic errors this wire service forces down our throats each day.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Here's the headline, </span><br />
<h1 id="yn-title" style="font-family: georgia, times, serif; font-size: 28px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 33px; margin-bottom: 14px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">Social Class May Affect Outcome of Depression Treatment</h1><div>Really? How did Healthday get that from, </div><div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">Researchers reviewed the cases of 239 patients with major depression who took part in the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program from 1982 to 1986.</div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">The patients took antidepressants or received one of two different kinds of psychotherapy: interpersonal psychotherapy or cognitive-behavioral therapy. After treatment with drugs or psychotherapy, working-class and poor patients showed less improvement in their ability to function at work than did middle-class patients who had the same treatments, the University of Illinois researchers found.</div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">1982-1986? Seriously. A meta analysis from OVER 20 years ago!!! There were 3 groups. One group had antidepressants, one group had individual psychotherapy and 1 group had cbt. Reminds me of "this little piggy, went to market...this little piggy stayed home." Then, they tried to make conclusions about the efficacy based on the fact that "poor or working class" people having a different experience. Let's begin...</span></span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><b>Sample size</b>. How many of the patients were classified as "poor/working class" vs. "middle class"? Were they EQUALLY distributed in the three groups? What was the result for the "no treatment" control group ($20 says there wasn't one)? Each time you make the group smaller, it becomes harder to detect differences. Perhaps these things were addressed, Healthday doesn't tell us this, because Heathday seems not to respect our collective intelligence enough to do so.</span></span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><b>Age of data. </b>Just so we're clear, antidepressant drugs have changed. Prozac and SSRIs came to market (there are those little piggies again) in 1987. Got that? A year AFTER the data were closed. The data may be irrelevant. Perhaps prozac would have worked wonders for both groups. Since those are the most prescribed class of antidepressants these days, it seems really silly to not have data about how patients do with that therapy. The title of the article would lead you to believe that drugs are less likely to help you when you're poor and depressed. Well, until someone adds the drugs we have today into the investigation, it's explanatory value remains limited at best.</span></span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><b>Methods of treatment</b>. No group had BOTH the drug and the psychotherapy. It is a well researched theory (NOTE I don't say FACT here because nothing in science can be "proven", even evolution remains a theory) that the most successful outcomes for depression patients come from a COMBINATION of psychotherapy and antidepressants.</span></span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><b>Measurement of outcome</b>. Success was considered "ability to function at work." Interesting. How the heck did they measure that? Supervisor interviews? Bonus payments? Performance appraisals? Attendance? Give me a break.</span></span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Oh and putting "may" in the title is a pathetic answer, so Healthday should give up the ghost and admit to writing for click through rates.</span></span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Please tell me what you think. Do you have a set of statistics driven journalism needing skewering? Let me know.</span></span></div><div style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">-SG</span></span></div><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><br />
</div></div>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5029133780587641804.post-84089851453599539242010-11-13T14:49:00.000-08:002010-11-13T14:49:03.371-08:00Henry Blodgett Tells The Truth about the October employment numbers, or "This one goes to eleven..."<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">Today I must depart from my recent rants about medical journalism to give a shout out to Henry Blodgett and John Maudlin. Maudlin writes a weekly investor email that parses economic data, reinterprets it, and offers far better analysis than most business journalists can muster in their entire career. Henry, well, he wrote about it and gave us a GREAT headline...</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">"Wow -- Check Out How Blatantly Our Government Misled Us With The October Jobs Numbers!"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/wow-check-out-how-blatantly-our-government-misled-us-with-the-october-jobs-numbers-2010-11#comment-4cdf030ecadcbb55031d0000%23ixzz15CUN8EMm" style="color: #003399; text-decoration: none;">http://www.businessinsider.com/wow-check-out-how-blatantly-our-government-misled-us-with-the-october-jobs-numbers-2010-11#comment-4cdf030ecadcbb55031d0000#ixzz15CUN8EMm</a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">I encourage you all to read at least the Blodgett post, if not his source.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">Basically, the government came out and said that we added 100,000 jobs in October. That's a nice story. The economy is on the mend, the bluebird of happiness is chirping away, babies are cooing and... wait, is that my BS alarm going off? Darn, I hate it when that happens.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">Turns out, employment numbers are a result of a survey (mmmm sampling error smells good... but I won't even go there). After the survey folks at the BLS (and they ARE actually REALLY smart folks) apply a factor to the number to adjust for "seasonality". What they are trying to accomplish is taking out the "noise" in the employment numbers. A perfect example is in June when all those young whipper-snappers graduate and can't find jobs and move home to mommy and daddy's basement. No one wants to say, oh we now have 300K extra people without jobs (when actually, when you think about we totally do)... SO instead they "adjust out of that by multiplying the results by a factor of <insert result of scary looking algorithm designed to make your average mathphobe break into a cold sweat at the sight of it here>.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">Well, they really did it this time. They changed the factor. The following is a GROSS oversimplification for illustrative purposes. So 1,000,000 X .6 = 600,000. 600,000 employed people in September. Now, the folks at the BLS thought this month seems different. All that Halloween candy made them giddy so they decided to change the factor to .7. In October, they say, 1,000,000 X .7 = 700,000. OK, but did we get 100K new jobs of course, not.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">Here's the deal, anyone in government wanting to make a name for themselves would love to say 700,000-600,000 = 100,000 new jobs. IT'S A HALLOWEEN MIRACLE!</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">The reason this is so exciting is that a journalist has finally reported not on the number as released but on the manipulation of the data and how taking the number at face value is an insufficient form of inquiry. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">The other reason this is so funny is that the BLS basically just changed the scale of the ruler they use measure to measure employment. This one goes to 11... (If you don't recognize the reference, please add This Is Spinal Tap to your Netflix queue.).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">Have a wonderful weekend. It's beautiful here in SF and I'm off to enjoy it with my husband and baby girl.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">-SG</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span>Statgirl Tells The Truthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16645482865225283490noreply@blogger.com0