News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 110 N.F.L. Brains. Parent comment

Re:110 N.F.L. Brains by warcher on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @07:51PM (#14852828)
110/111 testing positive for CTE is insanely high, even with selection bias. This is a big, big deal, and should be treated like a big, big deal. This is not hyperbolic in the slightest. If a chemical plant was suspected of causing cancer, and you got those test results, same experimental bias and all, it would be shut down instantly.

Boyoga!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:110 N.F.L. Brains by BayesStreet on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @02:07AM (#14853956)
If I picked a sample of 5 cherries and I made sure they were all rotten, it sort of reduces the amount of statistical inference you can do about the true distribution of the cherries to zero. Your use of "even with selection bias" doesn't really make sense here.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:110 N.F.L. Brains by kilotaras on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @05:20AM (#14854691)
If you picked 9% of all cherries in whatever way you like, and found 98% of them rotten it still means that at least 8.8% of cherries are rotten. While not even close to 98% it's still a huge number in regard to CTE.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:110 N.F.L. Brains by warcher on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @12:45PM (#14857819)
To say nothing of the many potential causes for potential cognitive decline in later life. I would expect the vast majority of cases of dementia in life to not include CTE.

Except for NFL players.

I'm honestly puzzled at the people coming out of the woodwork to troll this post. What is driving these people and their abandonment of reason?

[ Parent | on HN ]