From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:15:35 -0500, Bill Lucy  wrote:

> In article , gaw{at}sover.net
> says...
>> >
>> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/11/lancet-roundup-and-literature-review
>> > about sums it up.
>> >
>> > Kaplan's knowledge and abuse of statistics are quite remarkable.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I see much speechifying and damned little countering statistics.
>
> Huh? What the hell is "countering statistics"? The Lancet
article posted
> the statistics, did Kaplan/Slate counter? Or are you suggesting that the
> Crookedtimber piece should have posted such?
>

The Slate piece was a condemnation of the Lancet's abuse of statistics. To
be fair, the Lancet presented a range (which was enormous) but the usual
suspects ran with the bigger numbers.  The Lancet is still culpable and is
another example of magazines formally devoted to hard sciences (like
Scientific American) which have gone downhill over the years into partisan
causes.

--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5