Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:19:21 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Jim > Their illness isn't caused by their failure to quaff a couple a day.
It's the other way around,
gts > "My point, Jim, is that this statement above is pure speculation. It
is only after the fact that the researchers attempted to speculate about a
theory that would explain their anomalous results.
In other words it is not a tested hypothesis. It is a mere conjecture,
which
you are now stating as fact."
Gordon, I reread your message. Sorry, I misunderstood your point. You're
not questioning here the Bristol study finding that the graph is more J
than U shaped. Your questioning their theory (not conjecture!) as to why
the difference between their findings and the U graph findings.
That theory states that previous researchers failed to take into account
the subgroup of the teetotaller group who were ill and did not drink
because of their illness. I find this convincing. Do you? If not, how
else would you explain the Bristol findings?
|
|
|