You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #46: "We adjusted for confounding factors" -- that's what they *always* say [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
46. "We adjusted for confounding factors" -- that's what they *always* say
I'm always highly skeptical that claim in any way legitimizes the findings. From having read quite a few examples of this kind of study (claims that this one is "one-of-a-kind" notwithstanding, because it is no such thing), I rather get the impression that the claim that confounding factors were adjusted or controlled for means little more than "we did some hand-waving and twiddled the numbers until they said what we wanted them to."

Let's see if the results of this study can be replicated, preferably by someone who isn't active in the field of public health. Replicability is the true test of scientific validity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Penn Study Asks, Protection or Peril? Gun Possession of Questionable Value in an Assault OKIsItJustMe  Sep-30-09 11:52 AM   #0 
  - And among the dangers are that the assaulted gun owners will shoot themselves.  damntexdem   Sep-30-09 11:56 AM   #1 
  - From the study  OKIsItJustMe   Sep-30-09 12:08 PM   #8 
     - But not matched on..  X_Digger   Sep-30-09 12:37 PM   #14 
        - Youre missing a key part of the statement  OKIsItJustMe   Sep-30-09 12:45 PM   #17 
           - Well, since I don't have a subscription..  X_Digger   Sep-30-09 12:48 PM   #19 
           - "has this been published in a non-subscription journal?"  OKIsItJustMe   Sep-30-09 12:59 PM   #20 
              - My problem with peer reviewed gun studies..  X_Digger   Sep-30-09 02:16 PM   #24 
              - Your objection would be more valid if it was a study of how guns operate  OKIsItJustMe   Sep-30-09 02:31 PM   #27 
                 - But it's not a disease..  X_Digger   Sep-30-09 02:42 PM   #30 
              - It wouldn't be the first time  Euromutt   Sep-30-09 05:41 PM   #37 
           - "We adjusted for confounding factors" -- that's what they *always* say  Euromutt   Sep-30-09 07:16 PM   #46 
              - "Confounding Factor" = "Something that wouldn't let us get the results we wanted". n/t  PavePusher   Oct-01-09 09:27 AM   #54 
  - It happens. The mugger bops you on the head, then...  MineralMan   Sep-30-09 11:58 AM   #2 
  - Actually, more accurate studies show that almost never happens.  TheWraith   Sep-30-09 12:04 PM   #7 
  - Ah, teachings from the College of It Stands To Reason  Euromutt   Sep-30-09 06:20 PM   #38 
  - Most street assault DO come with warnings.  GreenStormCloud   Oct-03-09 09:19 AM   #75 
  - Here we go again.......  yellowcanine   Sep-30-09 11:59 AM   #3 
  - Okay  atreides1   Sep-30-09 11:59 AM   #4 
  - They don't differentiate between assaulter and assaultee, do they???  cliffordu   Sep-30-09 12:01 PM   #5 
  - Makes sense  droidamus2   Sep-30-09 12:01 PM   #6 
  - According to the study, that scenario (armed resistance) increases the odds even more  OKIsItJustMe   Sep-30-09 12:35 PM   #13 
  - Of course they included those in illegal possession of firearms.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Sep-30-09 06:50 PM   #43 
  - Does that include sexual assault?  safeinOhio   Sep-30-09 01:18 PM   #21 
  - Excuse me  droidamus2   Sep-30-09 02:42 PM   #31 
  - What you say does make common sense...  TPaine7   Sep-30-09 03:52 PM   #34 
  - It's reasonable to surmise if you're unfamiliar with the mechanics of shooting  Euromutt   Oct-03-09 08:50 AM   #73 
     - Add to your good post: Action beats reaction.  GreenStormCloud   Oct-03-09 09:11 AM   #74 
  - Why is the gun lobby afraid of research?  divideandconquer   Sep-30-09 12:09 PM   #9 
  - You mean "research" with the result pre-determined?  X_Digger   Sep-30-09 12:44 PM   #16 
  - +1  TPaine7   Sep-30-09 03:58 PM   #35 
  - Afraid of biased research affecting policy  DissedByBush   Oct-01-09 11:10 PM   #64 
  - Actually, we welcome GENUINE research.  GreenStormCloud   Oct-03-09 09:22 AM   #76 
  - Did they break it down by legal vs non-legal gun owners? n/t  Ian David   Sep-30-09 12:14 PM   #10 
  - I'm calling BS on this study  RamboLiberal   Sep-30-09 12:22 PM   #11 
  - Isn't that the big issue with the Kellerman Study too?  DonP   Sep-30-09 02:22 PM   #25 
     - It has exactly the same problems as Kellermann's 1993 study  Euromutt   Oct-01-09 12:18 AM   #50 
        - Oh, I forgot the big one: which way does the causal relationship run?  Euromutt   Oct-01-09 06:47 PM   #63 
  - Open questions re methodology..  X_Digger   Sep-30-09 12:33 PM   #12 
  - This addresses some of your concerns  OKIsItJustMe   Sep-30-09 12:42 PM   #15 
     - So the case control correlation wasn't legit.. gotcha.  X_Digger   Sep-30-09 12:47 PM   #18 
     - Said otherwise: Shooting cases were predominantly gang related. Gotcha. Awesome study!  OneTenthofOnePercent   Sep-30-09 01:38 PM   #22 
     - Many shooting case participants were likely engaged in illegal activity in illegal possession...  Fire_Medic_Dave   Sep-30-09 06:53 PM   #44 
     - So the "shooting case participants" significantly fell into demographics unlikely to have land lines  Euromutt   Oct-03-09 08:36 AM   #72 
  - Hardly first of its kind and actually contradicts USDoJ studies . . .  Will E Orwontee   Sep-30-09 02:15 PM   #23 
  - What Would denny Crane Do?  Treo   Sep-30-09 02:24 PM   #26 
  - This study helps resolve the long-standing debate  TPaine7   Sep-30-09 02:33 PM   #28 
  - Sophistry you say  OKIsItJustMe   Sep-30-09 02:41 PM   #29 
     - Yes, sophistry...  TPaine7   Sep-30-09 03:04 PM   #32 
        - It would be as legitimate for thisepidemiologist to study the efficacy of Firestone tires  OKIsItJustMe   Sep-30-09 06:33 PM   #40 
           - Let's put my comment in context  TPaine7   Sep-30-09 07:42 PM   #48 
              - I have to ask  OKIsItJustMe   Oct-01-09 10:44 AM   #57 
                 - Hmm  TPaine7   Oct-01-09 12:21 PM   #58 
                 - A single study is evidence of very little  Euromutt   Oct-01-09 05:43 PM   #62 
                    - Additionally, you don't need to be an expert on fashion design and tailoring...  Euromutt   Oct-01-09 11:38 PM   #65 
  - I see one serious flaw in the study.  GreenStormCloud   Sep-30-09 03:19 PM   #33 
  - Among other flaws in this study, these you mention stand out (nt)  SteveM   Oct-01-09 01:17 AM   #51 
  - Does this include stripping firearms from LEO's?  Tejas   Sep-30-09 04:50 PM   #36 
  - This study tosses out 99%+ of successful DGUs.  GreenStormCloud   Sep-30-09 06:32 PM   #39 
  - Coming to a theater near you!  X_Digger   Sep-30-09 06:48 PM   #42 
     - Funniest. Thing. All. Week! n/t  PavePusher   Sep-30-09 07:08 PM   #45 
     - Love it. LOL. N/T  GreenStormCloud   Oct-01-09 08:21 AM   #52 
  - Did they look at legal owners or did they include those in illegal possession?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Sep-30-09 06:47 PM   #41 
  - In further news, "Insulin of questionable value in treating diabetes"  Euromutt   Sep-30-09 07:23 PM   #47 
  - I gotta call BS on this...  tortoise1956   Sep-30-09 09:36 PM   #49 
  - Wait a minute, if I'm reading this correctly  chibajoe   Oct-01-09 09:02 AM   #53 
  - Indeed, the sample set "Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault" includes both  slackmaster   Oct-01-09 12:39 PM   #59 
  - I'm guessing this is another one of those studies where they had the answer  JonQ   Oct-01-09 09:49 AM   #55 
  - Hmmm, take a survey of criminals treated at an urban hospital  benEzra   Oct-01-09 10:07 AM   #56 
  - Horseshit.  proteus_lives   Oct-01-09 01:29 PM   #60 
  - Are we talking about people carrying guns illegally being shot by their peers?  Howzit   Oct-01-09 04:48 PM   #61 
  - Total Fail!  Taitertots   Oct-02-09 12:14 PM   #66 
  - Wow, I didn't catch that  JonQ   Oct-02-09 12:58 PM   #67 
     - Gun grabbers lie all the time...  spin   Oct-02-09 01:32 PM   #68 
  - Is this what passes for medical research?  Indy Lurker   Oct-02-09 07:25 PM   #69 
     - If this is considered "medical research"...  PavePusher   Oct-03-09 12:46 AM   #70 
     - Not medical research, "public health research"  Euromutt   Oct-03-09 08:03 AM   #71 
     - Oh, whoa, wait a minute. The control group consisted of calling random people  benEzra   Oct-03-09 08:57 PM   #78 
        - That was a problem with Kellermann's 1993 study too  Euromutt   Oct-04-09 06:12 PM   #79 
     - The researchers didn't want to consider...  spin   Oct-03-09 12:01 PM   #77 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC