- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,538
- Reaction score
- 28,883
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Looking at the data.. I think he lied. That might be a strong term.. but there is nowhere that a figure of 35/100 could have come up. I could not see how he arrived at that figure. whether relative risk or absolute risk.
his explanation that he mixed up the two.. doesn't fly.
Now.. perhaps he didn;t "LIE".. in the terms that he relied on someone else that made up that figure of 35/100.. probably from the administration and he was just repeating what the administration told him. But thats the problem.
I just cant believe that he lied since it is such an obvious thing to check.
The really insane thing is that that 35% RRR was in a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup! I mean...no one can rightfully take that seriously.