ywahrsbbssgshf

/in /by

Question ywahrsbbssgshf ywahrsbbssgshf Arts & Humanities Writing Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)

You might also like
Which of the following would cause the Brief Interview for Mental...
2- What impact will the growth rate have on a new share issue AND...
In a concurrent exchange mechanism, the medium (air or water) flows...
Refer to the literary works to support your responses. Discuss the... Refer to the literary works to support your responses.Discuss the them
Assignment: Adult addiction recovery center: You have just been...
Disaster planning and the Covid -19 pandemic What went well What...
A7,900-kgtruck runs into the rear of a1,000-kgcar that was...
cancer. She would like to evaluate the relationship between cellphone use and brain cancer using a hospital-based case-control study. The plan is to select cases of brain cancer from hospitalized patients, and to sample controls from individuals hospitalized for different reasons. The hospital is in a low-income area, and is well-known for its expertise in treating cancer, so cases may come from all over the U.S. to be treated. Controls, however, will likely be sampled from the population who lives in the area near the hospital.  -Consider the viewpoint of the investigator. How might she conduct this study or not conduct this study differently from someone who did not have a close relative die of brain cancer? -Consider the selection of cases and controls for the study. Does the approach seem reasonable? Why or why not?2)Gary Taubes is a science writer who has long been a vocal critic of epidemiology. His views have caused the ire of many upstanding researchers, often because while he may miss some of the nuances of epidemiology, he also makes good points! Now that you have a background in study design, risk estimation, and bias, you are in a good position to determine for yourself if all of Mr. Taubes' arguments hold sway. You may find it informative to read the earlier references to Taubes' own work ("Do we really know what makes us healthy?" is a fascinating read), but this is not required for the discussion.  Read "Science, Psuedoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat". You may find it helpful to jot down some of your gut reactions to the article as you read - keep in mind your role as a healthy skeptic, and don't be afraid to agree with him. Participate in the following discussion by addressing the following points about several of Taubes' key arguments:  -The magnitude of association for the cited nutritional epidemiology study by Willett et al. (and many other observational studies) is very small. Given what you know about how bias can affect the measure of association and therefore what we infer from a study's findings, do you agree with Taubes' assertion that small risks essentially mean the absence of risk? Why or why not? -Taubes repeats his mantra that experimental studies are the only way to determine what factors are causal for a health endpoint.  Given what you know about study designs and bias, what might you say to refute his opinion?  Provide clear and specific examples in your response.