Statistically

"Statistically, airplane travel is safer than driving..." "Statistically, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to..." "Statistically, the benefits outweigh the risks..."

What does statistically mean in sentences like this? Strictly speaking, nothing at all. If airplane travel is safer than driving, then that's just a fact. (It is true on an hour-by-hour basis). There's no statistically about it. A fact can't be somehow statistically true, but not really true. Indeed, if anything, it's the opposite: if there are statistics proving something, it's more likely to be true than if there aren't any.

But we often treat the word statistically as a qualifier, something than makes a statement less than really true. This is because psychologically, statistical truth is often different to, and less real than, other kinds of truth. As everyone knows, Joseph Stalin said that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. Actually, Stalin didn't say that, but it's true. And if someone has a fear of flying, then all the statistics in the world probably won't change that. Emotions are innumerate.

*

Another reason why statistics feel less than real is that, by their very nature, they sometimes seem to conflict with everyday life. Statistics show that regular smoking, for example, greatly raises your risk of suffering from lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other serious illnesses. But it doesn't guarantee that you will get any of them, the risk is not 100%, so there will always be people who smoke a pack a day for fifty years and suffer no ill effects.

In fact, this is exactly what the statistics predict, but you still hear people referring to their grandfather who smoked like a chimney and lived to 95, as if this somehow cast doubt on the statistics. Statistically, global temperatures are rising, which predicts that some places will be unusually cold (although more will be unusually warm), but people still think that the fact that it's a bit chilly this year casts doubt on the fact of global warming.

*

Some people admit that they "don't believe in statistics". And even if we don't go that far, we're often a little skeptical. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, we say. Someone wrote a book called How To Lie With Statistics. Few of us have read it, but we've all heard of it.

Sometimes, this is no more than an excuse to ignore evidence we don't like. It's not about all statistics, just the inconvenient ones. But there's also, I think, a genuine distrust of statistics per se. Partially, this reflects distrust towards the government and "officialdom", because most statistics nowadays come from official sources. But it's also because psychologically, statistical truth is just less real than other kinds of truth, as mentioned above.

*

I hope it's clear that I do believe in statistics, and so should you, all of them, all the time, unless there is a good reason to doubt a particular one. I've previously written about my doubts concerning mental health statistics, because there are specific reasons to think that these are flawed.

But in general, statistics are the best way we have of knowing important stuff. It is indeed possible to lie with statistics, but it's much easier to lie without them: there are more people in France than in China. Most people live to be at least 110 years old. Africa is richer than Europe. Those are not true. But statistics are how we know that.

[BPSDB]

Statistically

"Statistically, airplane travel is safer than driving..." "Statistically, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to..." "Statistically, the benefits outweigh the risks..."

What does statistically mean in sentences like this? Strictly speaking, nothing at all. If airplane travel is safer than driving, then that's just a fact. (It is true on an hour-by-hour basis). There's no statistically about it. A fact can't be somehow statistically true, but not really true. Indeed, if anything, it's the opposite: if there are statistics proving something, it's more likely to be true than if there aren't any.

But we often treat the word statistically as a qualifier, something than makes a statement less than really true. This is because psychologically, statistical truth is often different to, and less real than, other kinds of truth. As everyone knows, Joseph Stalin said that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. Actually, Stalin didn't say that, but it's true. And if someone has a fear of flying, then all the statistics in the world probably won't change that. Emotions are innumerate.

*

Another reason why statistics feel less than real is that, by their very nature, they sometimes seem to conflict with everyday life. Statistics show that regular smoking, for example, greatly raises your risk of suffering from lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other serious illnesses. But it doesn't guarantee that you will get any of them, the risk is not 100%, so there will always be people who smoke a pack a day for fifty years and suffer no ill effects.

In fact, this is exactly what the statistics predict, but you still hear people referring to their grandfather who smoked like a chimney and lived to 95, as if this somehow cast doubt on the statistics. Statistically, global temperatures are rising, which predicts that some places will be unusually cold (although more will be unusually warm), but people still think that the fact that it's a bit chilly this year casts doubt on the fact of global warming.

*

Some people admit that they "don't believe in statistics". And even if we don't go that far, we're often a little skeptical. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, we say. Someone wrote a book called How To Lie With Statistics. Few of us have read it, but we've all heard of it.

Sometimes, this is no more than an excuse to ignore evidence we don't like. It's not about all statistics, just the inconvenient ones. But there's also, I think, a genuine distrust of statistics per se. Partially, this reflects distrust towards the government and "officialdom", because most statistics nowadays come from official sources. But it's also because psychologically, statistical truth is just less real than other kinds of truth, as mentioned above.

*

I hope it's clear that I do believe in statistics, and so should you, all of them, all the time, unless there is a good reason to doubt a particular one. I've previously written about my doubts concerning mental health statistics, because there are specific reasons to think that these are flawed.

But in general, statistics are the best way we have of knowing important stuff. It is indeed possible to lie with statistics, but it's much easier to lie without them: there are more people in France than in China. Most people live to be at least 110 years old. Africa is richer than Europe. Those are not true. But statistics are how we know that.

[BPSDB]

Avance Sempre Na vida as coisas, às vezes, andam muito devagar.
Mas é importante não parar.
Mesmo um pequeno avanço na direção certa já é um progresso, e qualquer um pode fazer um pequeno progresso.Se você não conseguir fazer uma coisa grandiosa hoje, faça alguma coisa pequena.
Pequenos riachos acabam convertendo-se em grandes rios.
Continue andando e fazendo.
O que parecia fora de alcance esta manhã vai parecer um pouco mais próximo amanhã ao anoitecer se você continuar movendo-se para frente.
A cada momento intenso e apaixonado que você dedica a seu objetivo, um pouquinho mais você se aproxima dele.Se você pára completamente é muito mais difícil começar tudo de novo.Então continue andando e fazendo.
Não desperdice a base que você já construiu.
Existe alguma coisa que você pode fazer agora mesmo, hoje, neste exato instante.Pode não ser muito mas vai mantê-lo no jogo.
Vá rápido quando puder.
Vá devagar quando for obrigado.
Mas, seja, lá o que for, continue.
O importante é não parar!!!
Autor desconhecido.

Este poema veio do Cantinho da Ritinha, lá do cantinho do mundo das mulheres.
Valeu Amiga.

DESEJO A TODOS UM LINDO FINAL DE SEMANA.
VOU VIAJAR PARA CASA DOS MEUS PAIS, HOJE A NOITE.
DEIXO UM CARINHO E ABRAÇO BEM FORTE A TODOS.
QUANDO VOLTAR RESPONDEREI TODOS OS CARINHOS DE VOCÊS.

FIQUEM COM DEUS, MEUS AMIGOS.
TENHAM UM LINDO FERIADÃO.


VENHA COMEMORAR COM ESTES DOIS BLOGS.
LEVE SEU SELINHO DE 5.000MIL VISITAS.


Poetas-Um Vôo Livre

Sinal de Liberdade-uma expressão de sentimento

A ESPERANÇA.

HOJE COMPREI UM LIVRO QUE FALA DA ESPERANÇA.

E É DELA QUE PRECISAMOS, PARA VENCER E
CONTINUARMOS A NOSSA LUTA.
TER ESPERANÇA É TER A FÉ SEMPRE MUITO VIVA DENTRO DE NÓS.
É TER A CORAGEM DE LUTAR E VENCER TODOS OS OBSTÁCULOS.
É ACREDITAR QUE TUDO É POSSÍVEL, E QUE NADA É O FIM...
AS VEZES O SOFRIMENTO, É O NOSSO AMADURECIMENTO,
PARA A VIDA.
TEMOS QUE SERMOS FORTES E ACEITAR ALGUNS DESSES DESAFIOS,
QUE NOS SÃO PROPOSTOS.
SEI QUE, PASSEI POR ALGUNS MOMENTOS, DOLOROSOS DE ACEITAÇÃO.
MAS NÃO PODEMOS FUGIR DELES.
ELES EXISTEM E ESTÃO AI PARA SEREM ENCARADOS E ENFRENTADOS.
A ESPERANÇA É A NOSSA FORÇA ESPERITUAL, QUE TEMOS PARA VIVER.
É A NOSSA MOLA PROPULSORA, DO DIA A DIA.
E ESTAMOS AI. PARA CONTINUAR E LUTAR...
SEM PENSAR EM DESISTIR.
A VIDA NÃO PODE SER DESISTIDA.
TEM QUE SER SIM, ASSISTIDA COMO SENDO UM GRANDE ESPECTÁCULO.
O MAIOR E MAIS BELO DE TODOS.
VIVA A VIDA...VIVA A ESPERANÇA.

(AUTORIA: SANDRA ANDRADE).


VENHA COMEMORAR COM ESTES DOIS BLOGS.
LEVE SEU SELINHO DE 5.000MIL VISITAS.


Poetas-Um Vôo Livre

Sinal de Liberdade-uma expressão de sentimento

A Vaccine For White Line Fever?

A study claims that it's possible to immunize against cocaine: Cocaine Vaccine for the Treatment of Cocaine Dependence in Methadone-Maintained Patients. But does it work? And will it be useful?
The idea of an anti-drug vaccine is not new; as DrugMonkey explains in his post on this paper, monkeys were being given experimental anti-morphine vaccines as long ago as the 1970s. This one has been under development for years, but this is the first randomized controlled trial to investigate whether it helps addicts to use less of the drug.

Martell et al, a Yale-based group, recruited 115 patients. They all used both cocaine and opiates, and were given methadone treatment to try to reduce their opiate use. The reason why the authors chose to focus on these patients is that the methadone keeps people coming back for more and makes them less likely to drop out of the study, or as they put it, "retention in methadone maintenance programs is substantially better than in primary cocaine treatment programs. We also offered subjects $15 per week to enhance retention."

The vaccine consists of a bacterial protein (cholera toxin B-subunit) chemically linked to a cocaine-like molecule, succinylnorcocaine. Like all vaccines, it works by provoking an immune response. The bacterial protein triggers the production of antibodies, proteins which recognize and bind to specific targets.

In this case, the antibodies bind cocaine (anti-cocaine IgG) because of the succinylnorcocaine in the vaccine. Once a molecule of cocaine is bound to the antibody, it's effectively out of commission, as it cannot enter the brain. So, the vaccine should reduce or abolish the effects of the drug. The control group were given a dummy placebo vaccine.

The results? Biologically speaking, the vaccine worked, but in some people more than others. Out of the 55 subjects who were given the active vaccine, all but one produced anti-cocaine IgG. However, the amount of antibodies produced varied widely. Also, the response was short-lived. The vaccine was given 5 times over the first 12 weeks, but antibody levels did not peak until week 16, after which they fell rapidly.
And the key question - did it reduce cocaine use? Well, sort of. The authors measured drug use in terms of the proportion of urine samples which were cocaine-free. In the active vaccine group, the proportion of drug-free urine samples was higher over weeks 9 to 16, when the antibody levels were high, and this was statistically significant (treatment x time interaction: Z=2.4, P=.01). As expected, the benefit was greater in the people who made lots of antibodies (43 μg/mL) (treatment x time interaction: Z=4.8, P less than .001). But the effect was pretty small:

The bottom line was about 10% more urine samples testing negative, and even that was only true in the minority (38%) of people who responded well to the vaccine! Not very impressive, but on the other hand, the number of drug-free urine tests is a very crude measure of cocaine use. It doesn't tell us how much coke the patients used at a time, or how many times they used it per day.

Also, bear in mind that if it works, this vaccine might increase cocaine use in some people, at least at first. By binding and inactivating some of the cocaine in the bloodstream, the vaccine would mean you'd need to take more of the drug in order to feel the effects. It's curious that the authors relied on just one crude outcome measure and didn't ask the patients to describe the effects in more detail.

So, these are some interesting results, but the vaccine clearly needs a lot of work before it becomes clinically useful, as the authors admit - "Attaining high (43 μg/mL) IgG anticocaine antibody levels was associated with significantly reduced cocaine use, but only 38% of the vaccinated subjects attained these IgG levels and they had only 2 months of adequate cocaine blockade. Thus, we need improved vaccines and boosters." Quite an admission given that this study was partially funded by Celtic Pharmaceuticals, who make the vaccine.

It's also questionable whether any vaccine will be truly beneficial in treating cocaine addiction. Such a vaccine would be a way of reducing the temptation to use cocaine. In this sense, it would be just like naltrexone for heroin addicts, which blocks the effects of the drug. Or disulifram (Antabuse) for alcoholics, which makes drinking alcohol cause horrible side effects. Essentially, these treatments are ways of artificially boosting your "self-control", and they work.

But we've had naltrexone and disulifram for many years. They're cheap and safe. But we still have heroin addicts and alcoholics. This is not to say that they're never helpful - some people find them very useful. But they haven't eradicated addiction because addiction is not something that can be cured with a pill or an injection.

Addiction is a pattern of behaviour, and medications might help people to break free of it, but the causes of addiction are social, economic and psychological as well as biological. People turn to drugs and alcohol when there's nowhere else to turn, and unfortunately, there's no vaccine against that.

Martell BA, Orson FM, Poling J, Mitchell E, Rossen RD, Gardner T, & Kosten TR (2009). Cocaine vaccine for the treatment of cocaine dependence in methadone-maintained patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy trial. Archives of general psychiatry, 66 (10), 1116-23 PMID: 19805702

A Vaccine For White Line Fever?

A study claims that it's possible to immunize against cocaine: Cocaine Vaccine for the Treatment of Cocaine Dependence in Methadone-Maintained Patients. But does it work? And will it be useful?
The idea of an anti-drug vaccine is not new; as DrugMonkey explains in his post on this paper, monkeys were being given experimental anti-morphine vaccines as long ago as the 1970s. This one has been under development for years, but this is the first randomized controlled trial to investigate whether it helps addicts to use less of the drug.

Martell et al, a Yale-based group, recruited 115 patients. They all used both cocaine and opiates, and were given methadone treatment to try to reduce their opiate use. The reason why the authors chose to focus on these patients is that the methadone keeps people coming back for more and makes them less likely to drop out of the study, or as they put it, "retention in methadone maintenance programs is substantially better than in primary cocaine treatment programs. We also offered subjects $15 per week to enhance retention."

The vaccine consists of a bacterial protein (cholera toxin B-subunit) chemically linked to a cocaine-like molecule, succinylnorcocaine. Like all vaccines, it works by provoking an immune response. The bacterial protein triggers the production of antibodies, proteins which recognize and bind to specific targets.

In this case, the antibodies bind cocaine (anti-cocaine IgG) because of the succinylnorcocaine in the vaccine. Once a molecule of cocaine is bound to the antibody, it's effectively out of commission, as it cannot enter the brain. So, the vaccine should reduce or abolish the effects of the drug. The control group were given a dummy placebo vaccine.

The results? Biologically speaking, the vaccine worked, but in some people more than others. Out of the 55 subjects who were given the active vaccine, all but one produced anti-cocaine IgG. However, the amount of antibodies produced varied widely. Also, the response was short-lived. The vaccine was given 5 times over the first 12 weeks, but antibody levels did not peak until week 16, after which they fell rapidly.
And the key question - did it reduce cocaine use? Well, sort of. The authors measured drug use in terms of the proportion of urine samples which were cocaine-free. In the active vaccine group, the proportion of drug-free urine samples was higher over weeks 9 to 16, when the antibody levels were high, and this was statistically significant (treatment x time interaction: Z=2.4, P=.01). As expected, the benefit was greater in the people who made lots of antibodies (43 μg/mL) (treatment x time interaction: Z=4.8, P less than .001). But the effect was pretty small:

The bottom line was about 10% more urine samples testing negative, and even that was only true in the minority (38%) of people who responded well to the vaccine! Not very impressive, but on the other hand, the number of drug-free urine tests is a very crude measure of cocaine use. It doesn't tell us how much coke the patients used at a time, or how many times they used it per day.

Also, bear in mind that if it works, this vaccine might increase cocaine use in some people, at least at first. By binding and inactivating some of the cocaine in the bloodstream, the vaccine would mean you'd need to take more of the drug in order to feel the effects. It's curious that the authors relied on just one crude outcome measure and didn't ask the patients to describe the effects in more detail.

So, these are some interesting results, but the vaccine clearly needs a lot of work before it becomes clinically useful, as the authors admit - "Attaining high (43 μg/mL) IgG anticocaine antibody levels was associated with significantly reduced cocaine use, but only 38% of the vaccinated subjects attained these IgG levels and they had only 2 months of adequate cocaine blockade. Thus, we need improved vaccines and boosters." Quite an admission given that this study was partially funded by Celtic Pharmaceuticals, who make the vaccine.

It's also questionable whether any vaccine will be truly beneficial in treating cocaine addiction. Such a vaccine would be a way of reducing the temptation to use cocaine. In this sense, it would be just like naltrexone for heroin addicts, which blocks the effects of the drug. Or disulifram (Antabuse) for alcoholics, which makes drinking alcohol cause horrible side effects. Essentially, these treatments are ways of artificially boosting your "self-control", and they work.

But we've had naltrexone and disulifram for many years. They're cheap and safe. But we still have heroin addicts and alcoholics. This is not to say that they're never helpful - some people find them very useful. But they haven't eradicated addiction because addiction is not something that can be cured with a pill or an injection.

Addiction is a pattern of behaviour, and medications might help people to break free of it, but the causes of addiction are social, economic and psychological as well as biological. People turn to drugs and alcohol when there's nowhere else to turn, and unfortunately, there's no vaccine against that.

Martell BA, Orson FM, Poling J, Mitchell E, Rossen RD, Gardner T, & Kosten TR (2009). Cocaine vaccine for the treatment of cocaine dependence in methadone-maintained patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy trial. Archives of general psychiatry, 66 (10), 1116-23 PMID: 19805702

UM PRESENTE MUITO ESPECIAL DA MINHA LINDA ISA.

AGRADEÇO VOCÊ ISA PELOS LINDOS PRESENTES.

ANDO UM TANTO TRISTE, MUITAS COISAS ACONTECENDO AO MESMO TEMPO.
MAS NÃO VOU PERDER A FÉ.
EU QUE TRANSMITO A CADA UM DE VOCÊS, AGORA TAMBÉM TEREI QUE SER FORTE.
MUITAS COISAS ACABAM ACONTECENDO PARA QUE POSSAMOS TAMBÉM CRER MAIS E REPENSAR A NOSSA VIDA.


MUITO OBRIGADA A VOCÊ ISA. MEUS LINDO SONHO DE PESSOA.AMEI TODOS OS PRESENTES.

Para os meus Amigos de " Um Farol Chamado Amizade"

Com a ternura da isa.

Que esteja bem guardada... Curiosa

Sandra, que Deus guie a mão do médico que te vai operar.
Rezarei por ti. Beijo.
isa

APESAR DE TUDO O QUE ESTÁ ACONTECENDO, AGORA TENHO QUE REFAZER PELA TERCEIRA VEZ A MINHA CIRURGIA.

Um mimo da isa para a Sandra.

Beijo.isa.

VOU DEIXAR UM CORAÇÃO DE ROSAS PARA CADA UM DE VOCÊS QUE PASSAM POR AQUI.
ROSAS PERFUMADAS PARA TE AGRADECER O CARINHO E AFETO TÃO CONFORTANTE.
UM BEIJO A TODOS.