...We Welcome You To The Resverlogix HUB withIn The AGORACOM COMMUNITY!

Free
AGORACOM NEWS FLASH

Dear Agoracom Family,

I want to thank all of you for your patience with us over the past 48 hours and apologize for what was admittedly a botched launch of our new site.

As you can see, we have reverted back to the previous version of the site while we address multiple forum functionality flaws that inexplicably made their way into the launch.

To this end:

1.We have identified 8 fundamental but easily fixable flaws that will be corrected in the coming week, so that you can continue to use the forums exactly as you've been accustomed to.

2.Additionally we will also be implementing a couple of design improvements to "tighten up" the look and feel of the forums.

Have a great Sunday, especially those of you like me that are celebrating Orthodox Easter ... As well as those of you who are also like me and mourning another Maple Leafs Game 7 exit ... Ugggh!

Sincerely,

George et al

Message: Re: 0.05 P-values -- A bridge too far ?

As you correctly say, the important thing is the FDA recognizes it’s imperfect.

They don’t think the way journalists write - that a trial « was negative » or « failed » - just because P=0.06 and not 0.05. This story isn’t over yet. 

One of the most important clinical trials ever in heart disease prevention, the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial in the pre-statin era, was accepted by the FDA as demonstrating that lowering LDL cholesterol with cholestyramine reduced the incidence of heart attacks, even though the P value was as high as 0.10. History has shown they made the right decision.

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply