We would like to be able to estimate the (as yet) UNDIAGNOSED cases also.
Has anyone done this analysis, or seen it?
Thanks. Steve Whitaker, Ph.D.
>Thanks. Steve Whitaker, Ph.D.
I have no idea if this has been done or not.
There are ways of attempting this analysis. They all have
some sort of flaws. For example, I do not think you are
including enough variables; even within races, there can
be considerable genetic variability. It is these, and also
non-compliance, which are the worst causes of error, assuming
a moderate sample size. There are also too many counties.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
I don't know where they got their research but if you're looking for
statistics that might be a good place to start. Maybe they have done a
survey. It sounds about right. Since I'm in the field it seems like if
you talk to 10 people 8 of them if not diabetic have someone in their
family who is. Of course, I believe it is because NutraSweet "triggers"
diabetes. And the American Diabetic Assn is recommending it for diabetes
even though it is hazardous to their health. They know it, of course,
because Dr. H. J. Roberts, diabetic specialist, and author of books on
NutraSweet has given them enough research. They refused to publish his
abstract on aspartame reactors because they take money from Monsanto but
it was published in Clinical Research.
Betty Martini
Domain: be...@pd.org
UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!betty
It couldn't have anything to do with the facts that:
1) Prior to this century, a Type-I diabetic would have a good chance
of dying before being diagnosed; and
2) Type-II, by far the more common type of diabetes, tends to have an
onset relatively late in life, so you'd expect that as lifespan
increases, the rate of diabetes in the population is also likely to
increase
now could it? Nah, of course not. It makes MUCH more sense to believe that a
chemical not introduced until well after the trend began is responsible for the
trend, now doesn't it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I'd appreciate it if you'd
bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
preconceived notions if I'm posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.