We're Baaaacckkk!
Jun. 28th, 2011 04:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutWe went north to visit Storyland and Santa's Village for the last few days, leaving on Friday and returning around noon today, hence the lack of posts. I have discovered that the only real reason I watch TV is because we have a Tivo. No Tivo and I read a lot more.
Also, I forgot the cord for my laptop, so I was only using the tablet and phone and thus not consuming news and commenting on it. In case you miss that sort of thing, here's the better coverage of the Stephen Duffy study of mammography in Sweden:
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-mammography-20110628,0,2291322.story
Coverage of the study at places like ABC is so bad it's actually a little shocking.
I can't help but feel that if you have to track people for over a decade, and only 1 person benefits per 500 (and more than 1 per 500 probably got some form of overtreatment with all the risks attendant thereon), you could well be looking at a statistical artifact. But hey, that's just the kind of person I am. The author at the LA Times is more balanced than me.
Also, I forgot the cord for my laptop, so I was only using the tablet and phone and thus not consuming news and commenting on it. In case you miss that sort of thing, here's the better coverage of the Stephen Duffy study of mammography in Sweden:
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-mammography-20110628,0,2291322.story
Coverage of the study at places like ABC is so bad it's actually a little shocking.
I can't help but feel that if you have to track people for over a decade, and only 1 person benefits per 500 (and more than 1 per 500 probably got some form of overtreatment with all the risks attendant thereon), you could well be looking at a statistical artifact. But hey, that's just the kind of person I am. The author at the LA Times is more balanced than me.