 |
 |
Dear Ann: I am not a statistician either, but I used statistics in my profession. I believe the progression in effect with dosage is what you and your husband expect - I would guess this to be more out of common sense than statistics. If these results are expected to reflect an underlying linear equation then I, too, would expect more effect at 600 than 300, even if not statistically significant. A lack of statistical significance at 600 might also indicated that the variable being measured cannot be confidently quantified from the sample studied, which I believe Dr. Lieberman was saying. But the underlying effect could be non-linear, in which case, even if known, the effectiveness variable might be quite different. When the system being studied is a biological one, extremely complicated with many different inputs, I believe non-linearity in two dimensions (dosage and effect) is more likely in the real world than linearity. Thus, based on my limited knowledge, I wouldn't question the study results based on the effects apparently yielded by a progression of doses in what was probably a relatively small sample. Michael in Tampa [log in to unmask] Father is PWP 72/70/61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn