STL comments on Living Forever is Hard, or, The Gompertz Curve - Less Wrong

46 Post author: gwern 17 May 2011 09:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 January 2012 02:43:43AM 0 points [-]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the numbers ("OR, 0.93"), but the new study observed a 7% decrease in cancer mortality, which they called "not significant".

Do you think that if you had seen the evidence the other way around that you would be asking the same questions?

I would be unhappy with the other study's population, but very happy with its followup period. (The fact that the observed benefit grew with the length of time taking aspirin was especially convincing, as I mentioned earlier. That is a property that is very unlike "maybe we're seeing it, maybe we're not" noise at the threshold of detection.)

Last year, I told you that polio had no natural reservoirs, and you continued to believe otherwise, so I am not especially inclined to argue further.

Comment author: gwern 17 January 2012 02:52:47AM 1 point [-]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the numbers ("OR, 0.93"), but the new study observed a 7% decrease in cancer mortality, which they called "not significant".

No, that's correct. If you want to use stuff that doesn't reach significance, I can't stop you. (You didn't reply to Yvain's points, incidentally.)

Last year, I told you that polio had no natural reservoirs, and you continued to believe otherwise, so I am not especially inclined to argue further.

And you misunderstood the point about carriers defeating eradication attempts.