"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>
> >considerable benefit for neurogenic bladder problems,
>
> I did not know that, but I know that the topic is of considerable
> interest to people with various other conditions.
Yes, recent work at the National Hospital of Neurology and
Neurosurgery in London, UK has shown that two cannibinoids
administered in a spray considerably reduce urinary
frequency and the number of time PwMS have to get up to pee
during the night (a big problem). The researcher I was
talking to said that there are cannibinoid receptors in the
bladder and the cortex but not in the micuration control
areas of the brainstem nor in the spinal cord.
> As is the
> fact that the Supreme Court seems to have decided that pi = 3
> again...
More like -6.
> Here I get a little lost again. Exactly what does it mean
> to say the "relative risk" is 4.8?
I assumed it meant event A happened 4.8 times as much as
would be expected if the two events were unrelated.
> And here again I'm _totally_ lost.
Okay, put it like this:
Of 1086240 trials, A happened in 17484 of them, B happened
in 124 and both A and B happened in 9.
I really need to know how to how to calculate the
statistical implications here. Please someone help me!
> >What I want to know is what is the correlation between these
> >two event?
> >Most importantly, how statistically significant is the
> >result?
> >Can any reasonable conclusions be drawn from these data -
> >esp, in view of the small dataset size?
Take care,
Paul
All About MS - the latest MS News and Views
http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
