|
IL | You are correct - I used a poor choice of wording. You certainly can make the conclusion that the results are significant, assuming you trust that the authors did their due diligance (and I do).
However, there appears to be a few people on here who (for whatever reason) don't trust the results. For them, the only way to deal with that would be to analyze the results themselves - which you can't do from the table - and come to your own conclusions. I certainly won't take the time to do that, because, frankly, I don't care. I doesn't matter to me and it is entirely beside the point.
I find it amusing that this whole discussion went off the rails and became about whether or not those results were 'significantly different'. The whole point of posting the U of IL table to begin with was simply to illustrate the fact that the *original* claim was purely fictitious - relying on bogus data. | |
|
|
It was not the Chinese, it was the Canadians!
