From: "Phil Payne" 

> No, for the exact search I specified the numbers hits was exactly what I
> said it was, and again, I'm not claiming that a large number of hits means
> I'm right, just giving you a large number of sources to pick and choose
> from, since you will automatically denouce any source I cite.
>
> Now, my little govnyukh, are you going to respond to the Slate (hardly a
> Bush fan publication) article I posted which explained EXACTLY what was
> wrong with Lancet's misuse of statistics?

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.

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