Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (164832)	3/21/2010 2:07:12 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Yes, there was. From the article: Our questionnaire went out Aug. 28 to some 25,600 doctors nationwide. Of that substantial sample, we got 1,476 responses. One hundred of those were retired, leaving 1,376. There is no way that a poll that selects some subset of doctors (and they don't even claim that the initial 25K were 'random' - they may have been people who've registered with their right wing site) who return a survey is demographically representative. It is just not mathematically feasible. That's why pollsters are very careful about selecting the random group, and weighting it if necessary so that there results are somewhere near correct. To extrapolate results to: What we found was that of the 800,000 physicians practicing in the U.S. in 2006, as many as 360,000 might leave the profession. So with the proposed overhaul, we'd be trying to cover 31 million more patients with up to 45% fewer doctors. is wildly misleading and irresponsible. They take an unscientific poll and claim 'as many as 360,000 might leave the profession'? Not only bad science, but so blatantly wrong as to qualify as a deliberate lie. Then, they tried to give it legitimacy by saying it was published: This poll, by the way, was published as an insert in the New England Journal of Medicine — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. While the poll doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the journal, would the editors allow a poll in their peer-reviewed medical publication if they thought it were false? Not likely. Notice that it was published NOT as a peer-reviewed article, but as an 'insert' - that is, a paid advertisement. They try to give this bogus poll legitimacy by paying a publication to print it in an advertisement? Just how lame is that? Are you going to be convinced of the latest teeth whitening or Acai berry products because they are advertised on Fox News's site (they are - I just checked). People who give credence to such 'polls', with their biased, unscientific results that beg for legitimacy via buying advertising in a respected source, are those who are already pre-convinced of their results. It is misinformation based on misrepresentation meant to muddy the waters and spread unjustified fear to those who don't have the time or patience to pay close enough attention - in other words, the majority of every day folk. It is a lie.