H. Kuska reply to billo: I have tried to the best of my ability to explain
to you the basis of "your" difficulty comprehending the basics of an odds
ratio calculation. I even provided you with a third party computer program
so that you (and others) can test "your" interpretation against my
interpretation. The calculation based on my interpretation is consistent
with the published results; the calculation based on "your" interpretation
is not consistent with the reported results. That is sufficient
information for me to conclude that I have interpreted the paper correctly.
I am sorry that you are not able to understand what I have presented.
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
H. Kuska continuation of reply: notice they are discussing the data in
Table
6 (for the reader the data in Table 6 does not even mention glyphosate,
it
discusses classes of pesticides
(herbicides/insecticides/fumigants/fungicides/other)). Later in the
paragraph they then discuss other cases. Yes, they probably should have
started another paragraph at that point; perhaps they did; and that in
the
typesetting process the indentation was lost - all we can conclude for
sure
is that, for whatever the reason, a new paragraph marker is not there.
That
doesn't mean that they intended for the referent group definition to
apply
to the phosphine and glyphosate sentences nor does it mean that they are
lying. Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers.


But not to those belonging to the Psychic Science Network. Who cares
what the authors actually wrote. I'll tell you what, Henry. If you
want to pretend that the authors did not mean what they wrote, please
feel free to contact them and ask them.

But before you do, I suggest you take time to read the article. And
if you want to maintain any credibility to them, don't pull out your
"I don't need to read the steenkin' paper" screed.


billo