| csagan001 | 08-28-2009 05:10 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by SillyYorkie
(Post 2777164)
Thought you were a "factual" guy. Where's the rest of the message? The.....is pretty interesting to me.
Slippery slope my friend. No full disclosure?
| Oops....sorry. Here it is:
(My comments regarding the letter I received from MARS are in italicized blue.
Dear Mr. Sagan,
Dr. Fretwell is happy to discuss your questions, but at this time, we are not able to send you statistical data without compromising the successful submission of this information for an upcoming peer reviewed scientific journal. [NOTE: As an academic researcher, I can honestly say that this claim is about as far from the truth as one can get. There is NO peer reviewed scientific journal which limits the free flow of information and data. This is the same arguement as that was used by a South Korean scientist who falsly claimed that he cloned a human being (remember him?) ] As an organization that is firmly grounded in our scientific discoveries and statistical data analysis, we have an obligation not to prejudice an ongoing study or the upcoming review by world-renowned thought leaders in genetics, mathematics, statistics and veterinary medicine. [That is the truth for any field of science. Yet witholding information just goes against the scientific tradition and everything taught to prospective Ph.D. candidates via their courses on design of experiements and ethical research.]
The data you are looking for will likely be published within the next few months and available for your review. [NOTE: There is no promise here. How anyone can conduct "science" without data, and without willingly sharing that data, is anathema to the entire search for an understanding of how our world works.] In the meantime, we'd be happy to connect you with Dr. Fretwell over the phone. [As I said repeatedly, I do not want a phone conversation. I want to see some data. Hard numbers regarding the error rates of Dr. Fretwell's research. The lack of data does nothing but indict the claims he is making.]
Regards,
Mars Veterinary As an aside, in the original posting from MARS the company used some very confusing statistics. If you are able to dig any real information of those confusing numbers, you will discern that: 1. MARS stated that their positive rate was 90%. (About the study paragraph 2, ....TP/(TP + false positvie calls) was 90%. 2. MARS stated that their negative rate was 3% (About the study, paragraph 2, ...S(TP/TP+false negative calls) was 97%. 3. As a result their overall accuracy rate is NOT 90% as they blithly claim. Their overall accuracy cannot be higher than 87.3%. As the statistics quoted leave out tests that provide both false positive and false negative results, at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for the accuracy rate to be 87.3% or higher. (if you doubt this calculation, start with 100,000 cases. 90% accuracy (10% false positive) times 100,000 leaves 90000 cases. 900000 cases with a 97% accuracy (3% false negative) leaves 87,300 potentially accurate cases. As a result, the results MARS is providing is worse than the data they've published. Unfortunately, I had wanted MARS to admit this themselves--as doing so would bolster their credibility. They refused to provide data. They did not refuse to provide data on their experimentation, nor on their process. They did something worse--they refused to provide data on the RESULTS of their experimentation. So, there ya go! You got the whole e-mail and my entire response to it. I am saddened that a group of scientists refuse to participate in the academy from which they earned their degrees. | 