Posted on 11/17/2004 11:06:41 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
Not the same comparison. The If it is incurable, the chance of death is 100% if no action is taken.
When you go into surgery, the surgeon is careful to mention that there are no guarantees, and that you may die as a result of invasive procedures. But you get your gall bladder taken out, anyway.
Would you go to a surgeon that would give you a 77% chance that at the end of the surgery he would not have removed your gall bladder?
OK, WTurkey.
Got the document. In The Document itself in Table 2. there is an enumeration of the 26 conditions.
From antianginal agents all the way down to intubation/ventilation.
And your analysis is... what, based on which evidence that YOU can observe? Be specific, with categories and numbers. You know we don't want you to look bad, here.
If it was 77% probable that I would die because of surgery, and 100% probable that I would die without it, sure I'd take the surgery.
That's not a very subtle argument.
So funny, and yet it's actually not. He is definitely the poster boy for POS politicians in our system.
God, please do the right thing and take this man soon.
Oh, I'm sorry. He'll have to answer to different 'lower authority' someday I presume.
It's been fun. Gotta go. CYa
I would go to another surgeon! No a subtle argument but you missed even so.
We can start there. How much did prayer improve the incidence of antianginal agent events?
I know I'm way behind on this thread and I'm sure some have said this, but I agree with aspects of this theory. We evolved in trees, but then the forest changed to open grasslands. So we had to change too. In the open, we needed to be able to spot predators, travel long distances looking for food, have less surface area exposed to the sun in the middle of the day, be able to cover short distances quickly. All of this lead to the transition towards the upright motion we have today. Running is part of it, but not nearly all of it.
Took you a while.
Antianginal events
11% IP 10% Control Statistically Insignificant Difference
Unstable angina
10% IP 9% Control Statistically Insignificant Difference
Antiarrythmics
9% IP 13% Control Statistically Insignificant Difference
Next line that you see........ is..?
That's not an argument, that's a Henny Youngman oneliner.
Hom come search didn't find this....posted the same article from the LA Times.....
And not a very good oneliner, either.
Is that your answer? Statistically insignificant?
And the next line you see... is ....?
Just answer the question. It's actually quite simple.
"How much did prayer improve the incidence of antianginal agent events?"
Funny you won't answer my question ...
This is not a reading class. Now answer my question:
You don't have the document.
A one percent decrease in the control group for antianginal events.
A one percent decrease in the control group for unstable angina.
A four percent improvement in the IP group for antiarrythmics.
More to come....if you can just tell me what's the next line.
Answered.
Now. Can you read? Or are you just wasting my time? If you are I'm going to be very pissed for about 30 seconds, then I'm going to forget you for a while.
Please answer the following:
Which group had the higher death rate?
A) The group receiving prayers
B) The group NOT receiving prayers
Case closed.
Conclusion: Prayer did not help.
Please answer the following:
Which group had the more deaths?
A) The group receiving prayers
B) The group NOT receiving prayers
Case closed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.