Is there a correlation between birth month and disease risk?

[Monique]

Thanks skywise, I wouldn't wish to offend anyone, surely there is no difference between string theorists and astrologists, both believe in an unproven theory which is supposed to describe reality. The only difference is that string theory is supposed to match up to the world of experiment, at least it doesn't contradict it, and there is a real firm ground of how it is supposed to work. I don't see that with astrology, and the fact that it is claimed to be unscientific by the people who stúdy it, really discredits it to me.

The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis, you do a prediction, you go and test that prediction on a selected sample and compare that to a null value (from a random sample).

Sure there are going to be deviations due to personal experiences. But if astrology really as an effect on a person's life, you are going to find that back in your data!

For instance, you read the natal chart out for a really large group of people and at the same time they are asked to fill in a questionaire. Then you split the group in two: group A is the sample where the natal record is kept with the correct person, group B is the control where all natal records are mingled up and put back at a random person.

Now someone is going to go through the natal record and see how they match up with the questionaire. Based on that an measure is given as to how far they match up. THEN you go and divide that big pile of data into the two groups again (it is important to keep such studies blind).

It should be evident from the data that the prediction rate in group A exceeds that of the one in group B, IF astrology is a real thing.

 

[Evo]

I have several problems with astrology. First, the constellations are not in the same place they were when the first astrological charts were created, but no one has ever corrected them, they are currently irrelevant.

Second, the "constellations" are "fictitious", the relation of the stars to each other is imaginary and only appear in those formations as viewed from earth. From another point in space you would not see these "constellations". They are not a real "group" in space. How can someone place significance on something that is imaginary?

Third, how can a ball of rock or gas millions of miles away have more impact on a person's personality than a nearby boulder?

 

[Monique]

You could really mess with someone's mind by placing a large rock under their desk
*little sarcastic joke*

 

[Ivan Seeking]

OK: perfect analogy: the weather. Weather can be scientifically proven with certain probabilities. The exact same should be possible with astrology, also making it scientific and thus acceptable.

An interesting note here: Since we don't usually see last week's weather report we don't seem to remember that accuracy of weather reports. This winter I was working on two projects for the state. The equipment is located in remote locations and in addition to modem comms, I often had to go on site for various problems. For this reason I became very dependant on weather reports. Critical weather prediction in Oregon seems to be less accurate than random chance. It got to the point that I could almost count on just the opposite of that predicted. If they said that there would be snow on the passes, then plan to go because it will surely be rain or nothing at all. When they called for rain, it snowed. When they called for a sunny day, it rained. This went on all during the fall and winter. It was very frustrating and expensive.

According to Willard Scott, I think it was, modern long range forecasts are 55% accurate. The Farmer's Almanac is 45% accurate.

As for Astrology, what we are really talking about here are cycles. Could there be hidden cycles in our biology or in the planet itself that could affect the characteristics of our offspring? Could celestial objects simply act as approximate clocks by which to measure other natural cycles? I always hear the demand for a cause and effect relationship with the planets in order to justify astrology. It seems to me that there could be coincidental relationships given enough hidden biological, geological, meteorological...etc...clocks. At last count I heard that we are thought to have perhaps hundreds of biological clocks that influence aging. Couldn't there be other types of natural clocks as well that simply coincide with astronomical cycles just by chance? If there is anything to astrology I think that something along this line might explain the apparent relationship to the planets. Be it coincidental or not, the little bit of serious astrology that I have been exposed to had me pegged pretty well...and don't start on me about Randi's test. I have seen his demonstration for astrology. His basic point is valid, but he seems to think that given considered thought, I [and anyone who doesn't agree with him] can't tell the difference between distinctive traits and traits that apply to everyone.

Edit: Toned down a little - I have found Randi to be offensive at times.

 

[Njorl]

Wow, that is weird. Sounds fishy to me. lol get it? fishy? pisces? sigh nevermind
Speaking of leap year my grandpa was born Feb 29, 1896. There was no leap year in the year 1900 so he was 8 on his first birthday. If he wouldn't have died we would have both had our 23rd birthday in the same month. Makes me wish I hadn't killed him.

I don't know why, but that reminded me of the joke, "I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers."

I wish I remember who said that.

Njorl

 

[Les Sleeth]

Astrology is not a science, cannot be proven, shouldn't hold scientific standards for it.. so what is the point, really?

I mean, it is impressive that you can know so much about the movement of celestial bodies, maybe it had an effect on people who were living in caves (where a full moon would predict a good hunt), but for the rest I think it is better to predict someone's future on the basis of the television programs they're watching.

If you are familiar with the exaggerations of pseudoscience, you know how theories about a legitimate principle can be extended far beyond what is known about it. Do we fault the principle, or are those who over-extend the blame?

Possibly a very intuitive someone a long time ago noticed similarities among people born within certain time periods. Since time periods also correspond to celestial movement, he/she tied those similarities to that (maybe the two are related, maybe not). After that, people who took up this idea extended it into great detail. You can see something similar in the Chinese concept of yin and yang, where it was noticed the universe seems to have a strong tendency toward polarization. It is an excellent observation, possibly indicating some sort of underlying polar nature in the fabric of space. Whatever it might mean, now, many centuries later, the concept of yin and yang is applied to everything from home design to fortune telling. So again I ask, do we fault the principle, or are those who over-extend the blame?

I actually think if the study of astrology's general principles were conducted properly, by unbiased, non-smirking, non-condescending, non-already-decided a priori empiricists, they might find the kind of general, very general, tendencies astrology predicts. Does that have to be magical or mystical? Not at all, it can be seen as purely mechanical.

Analogously, if you study how harmony works in music, you can see why some notes fit in a piece of music and why others do not. It is because they suit the pattern of the overall tune. Looking at birth, it happens within the regular cycles of the universe. Why should we be so suspect of a concept that says a pattern is repeated that affects personality? Right now plenty of physicalists are claiming that the human personality is nothing BUT the influence of physical factors from genes and neurons to conditioning. Why couldn't a time pattern be affecting things as well?

As someone who intensely dislikes superstition, I can say that I was surprised when I noticed the "generalities" of personalities born in specific time periods. I think my point is, one might open one's mind a little to see if anything at all is present in astrology buried beneath the layers of obsessive thinking about it, without having to buy all the stuff enthusiasts may have ignorantly developed in conjunction with it over the millennia.

 

[tribdog]

I think that astrology would be extremely accurate and everyone would be into it if it didn't have one tiny little flaw built into it. The more I look as astrology the more I like the theory I just have that one little problem with it. I just can't get over the little flaw of it being total and complete crap, but other than that...
Njorl funny joke!
One good thing about Astrology, it gave the world the most used pick-up line ever. What's your sign?
Now I'm sure I'll be accused of being closed minded, and in this case I'll plead guilty as charged. I also know that if I staple my lips to my forehead I'd blow up like a balloon everytime I sneezed and no matter what you tell me different I will remain closed minded on the subject and stay away from staplers and pepper.

 

[Kerrie]

I have several problems with astrology. First, the constellations are not in the same place they were when the first astrological charts were created, but no one has ever corrected them, they are currently irrelevant.

Second, the "constellations" are "fictitious", the relation of the stars to each other is imaginary and only appear in those formations as viewed from earth. From another point in space you would not see these "constellations". They are not a real "group" in space. How can someone place significance on something that is imaginary?

Third, how can a ball of rock or gas millions of miles away have more impact on a person's personality than a nearby boulder?

evo, another misunderstanding about astrology-the constellations have NOTHING to do with how astrology works, this is the sort of "myths" that uneducated scientists cast of astrology...while the fact that constellations have moved is true, they have no impact on astrology...astrology has to do with the planets, the sun, and their geometrical aspect to the earth...the only relation the constellations have with astrology, are the names which name the ecliptic (or house) that the sun is currently aspecting the earth...

 

[Kerrie]

As for Astrology, what we are really talking about here are cycles. Could there be hidden cycles in our biology or in the planet itself that could affect the characteristics of our offspring? Could celestial objects simply act as approximate clocks by which to measure other natural cycles? I always hear the demand for a cause and effect relationship with the planets in order to justify astrology. It seems to me that there could be coincidental relationships given enough hidden biological, geological, meteorological...etc...clocks.

THANK YOU IVAN! you hit the nail right on the head, astrology is a study of cycles, the cycles of human tendencies in coordination with the the cycles of the celestial bodies...what moves the planets, the sun, and all of the celestial bodies? i am not sure, but could it be the same force that moves us?

 

[Kerrie]

The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis, you do a prediction, you go and test that prediction on a selected sample and compare that to a null value (from a random sample).

Sure there are going to be deviations due to personal experiences. But if astrology really as an effect on a person's life, you are going to find that back in your data!

again monique, you will see astrology as incorrect because you are a scientist try not applying the scientific theory to astrology because it is not a science

intuition, understanding of how the planets move in relation to our earth, understanding of aspects (oppositions, trines, conjunctions - all factual placements of the planets in relation to the earth), and time to study people and psychology will help you understand the intricate language of it...

if you take an ephemeris-the book astrologists use-you will find tables of astronomical data...if i have my ephemeris, i can tell you what planets will be where in the sky, it will tell me that mercury is passing behind the sun (aka mercury in retrograde), but my ephemeris will not tell me how people will tend to react during certain aspects...that is the learned art and skill of the astrologist (very similar to a psychologist as skywise said)...

 

[Evo]

the only relation the constellations have with astrology, are the names which name the ecliptic (or house) that the sun is currently aspecting the earth...

I have no qualms with people into astrology, actually during my teens it was very popular and I learned a lot about it, ephemerides, I could plot charts. Interesting to learn.

But the "wholesale" astrology of "sun signs" is inaccurate. I was born on April 30th, so my sun sign is Taurus. Well, that was true a couple of thousand years ago. When I was born the sun would actually be in Sagittarius (I don't know which it really is, I'm just guessing) but I do know on April 30th the sun is no longer in Taurus.

So as Ivan & M L Sleeth pointed out, perhaps it has more to do with seasons.

 

[Kerrie]

I have no qualms with people into astrology, actually during my teens it was very popular and I learned a lot about it, ephemerides, I could plot charts. Interesting to learn.

But the "wholesale" astrology of "sun signs" is inaccurate. I was born on April 30th, so my sun sign is Taurus. Well, that was true a couple of thousand years ago. When I was born the sun would actually be in Sagittarius (I don't know which it really is, I'm just guessing) but I do know on April 30th the sun is no longer in Taurus.

So as Ivan & M L Sleeth pointed out, perhaps it has more to do with seasons.

evo, i think you are still misunderstanding what i am saying, constellations do not have anything do with astrology, there are 12 houses, 30 degrees each around the ecliptic of the Earth that represent these "sun signs"...the sun was in the house of taurus when you were born, not in the constellation of it...try reading up on the ecliptic of the earth, it will get into the geometry of astrology.

Ecliptic

Ecliptic 2

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think that astrology would be extremely accurate and everyone would be into it if it didn't have one tiny little flaw built into it. The more I look as astrology the more I like the theory I just have that one little problem with it. I just can't get over the little flaw of it being total and complete crap, but other than that...

Tell the truth -- you haven't looked into it at all. It seems to me you've looked at astrology superficially because that is how you talk about it. It's good ridicule material at a science site, so isn't that what you've investigated it for?

And guess what . . . my criticism isn't from someone who's into astrology, but rather from someone advocating an open mind. However, if you can successfully argue why we need to discount all aspects of astrology, I would like to hear you make your case. Do so and I'll change my mind about being open to astrology.

Now I'm sure I'll be accused of being closed minded, and in this case I'll plead guilty as charged. I also know that if I staple my lips to my forehead I'd blow up like a balloon everytime I sneezed and no matter what you tell me different I will remain closed minded on the subject and stay away from staplers and pepper.

Logic please. What exactly is analogous about your experiences with astrology and your experience of (metaphorically of course) stapling your lips to your forehead? In other words, you've claimed your close-mindedness is due to your experience with astrology. Are you willing to share those disenchanting experiences with us all so we too can understand the fallacy of openness to at least something being true about astrological principles?

 

[Monique]

again monique, you will see astrology as incorrect because you are a scientist try not applying the scientific theory to astrology because it is not a science

Thank you Kerrie, you have once and for all proven that Astrology is a waiste of time to study, holds no truth at all, and cannot tell anything about a persons tendencies.

If you have read my post with attentions I réally don't see why you don't get that. Science is a method that analyses effect, if there is no effect there is no effect. point. No effect is no theory.

 

[Kerrie]

Thank you Kerrie, you have once and for all proven that Astrology is a waiste of time to study, holds no truth at all, and cannot tell anything about a persons tendencies.

If you have read my post with attentions I réally don't see why you don't get that. Science is a method that analyses effect, if there is no effect there is no effect. point. No effect is no theory.

monique, let's just stop right here. you seem to have a bit of a harsh tone in this post, and i am trying to help you understand why it is not a science, but an art, something that cannot be analyzed scientifically-and maybe our science has not yet advanced to comprehend just how it works..and i am sorry that it cannot be "proven scientifically" within our current knowledge of science so that you can understand it the way you are used to understanding how our world works...it's unfortunate that your words tend to lead me to believe you have already closed your mind because it doesn't "fit"...

 

[Kerrie]

a good analogy of how astrology can work i found after doing some reading is take DNA and genetics for example...you have alcoholism tendencies in your family, however you have made the conscious decision to not drink...a natal chart points out strengths and weaknesses within our personality, however as human beings who ultimately decide who we are consciously, we can overcome or strengthen these tendencies within ourself...the natal chart does an excellent job of spotlighting these tendencies and making us aware...

 

[Monique]

a good analogy of how astrology can work i found after doing some reading is take DNA and genetics for example...

No, that is a bad analogy. Alcoholic tendencies can be measured scientifically in families based on statistics. I have been involved with such statistics myself, showing for instance that a sibling of an affected person has a 16% relative risk to develop the same particular disease.

You are telling me that astrology is not measurable by statistics, thus it is false. Clear as daylight. If the expert themselve claim there is absolutely no way to measure something that is indeed supposed to have an impact, then.. what?

Note that I am not talking about why or how it works, I am talking about whéther it works.

 

[tribdog]

actually I did try to look into astrology once. My girlfriend was into astrology and, being the romantic guy I am, I wanted to give her a detailed horoscope. Where I ran into trouble was when I checked more than one book on the subject out of the library. The books weren't standardized and even contradicted each other. If astrology was valid the books wouldn't contradict each other. The books also talked about the need to interpret the charts based on your observations. So in order to make a good reading you needed to be able to read someone, which negates the need for the astrology chart in the first place.

 

[hypnagogue]

I am of the same general mind as Kerrie, Ivan and LW: we should not reject astrology out of hand as there may be some subtle but existent substance to it.

At the same time, I agree with Monique that if astrology predicts general tendencies of people as a function of time of birth, then statistical analysis should be able to display these tendencies for all to see. This does not mean we have to concoct a scientific theory or anything like that-- at the bare minimum, if astrology can accurately show/predict/however-you-want-to-phrase-it general tendencies in people's mental/behavioral dispositions, these tendencies should naturally be reflected in at least a theory-neutral, statistical analysis. If a properly conducted statistical analysis with a sufficiently large sample size shows no significant correlations, then there are no correlations, as a matter of tautological fact.

It is a further, open question as to whether any truly valid statistical analyses of this nature have been conducted. Ideally such a project would involve experienced, well-regarded astrologers working in concert with experienced, well-regarded scientists to conduct a controlled, double blind, large scale statistical analysis with a methodology that is widely agreed upon by both astrologers and scientists alike to be fair and accurate. Another critical factor would be the extent to which practitioners on both sides of the table are truly unbiased and willing to let experiment determine results, rather than having an agenda to prove things one way or the other.

 

[Monique]

At the same time, I agree with Monique that if astrology predicts general tendencies of people as a function of time of birth, then statistical analysis should be able to display these tendencies for all to see.
[..]
If a properly conducted statistical analysis with a sufficiently large sample size shows no significant correlations, then there are no correlations, as a matter of tautological fact.
[..]
Another critical factor would be the extent to which practitioners on both sides of the table are truly unbiased and willing to let experiment determine results, rather than having an agenda to prove things one way or the other.

Finally a person who believes in astrology, who also agrees that it can be proven by scientific means *big relief*

And for your last sentence: it would be hard if not impossible for people to be biased in any way in a double blind study.

 

[Kerrie]

Finally a person who believes in astrology, who also agrees that it can be proven by scientific means *big relief*

And for your last sentence: it would be hard if not impossible for people to be biased in any way in a double blind study.

monique, can human free will be catagorized and statistically analyzed? this is the huge variable that "disproves" astrology as a science...as a virgo, you may have the tendency to be pessimistic, detailed, meticulous, does this mean you are? if astrology were a science, you would automatically be all of these characteristics, however, you do have the free will to control this tendency, correct? how much of astrology do you really know with your own studies and experience monique?

hyp...astrology has been through its shares of studies, and it seems those studies i have run across on the web are conducting by scienctists...intuition is used in interpretation, and from what i understand, intuition is not a "reliable" factor for conducting science...so for monique, astrology will not be proven to be accurate or true because of this factor until she educates herself with astrology without the factor of science in the way...

i am done with this topic, it seems again that i am going to just debate endlessly with those who are out to pound my experience, understanding and knowledge of one of the oldest "sciences" down to the ground because it doesn't fit in today's perspective...i will recommend a good starting place that offers FREE natal charts and computer generated interpretations if those who wish to step outside the scientific community and venture into a community that supports human healing and human understanding just as much as science strives:

Astro

 

[hypnagogue]

monique, can human free will be catagorized and statistically analyzed? this is the huge variable that "disproves" astrology as a science...as a virgo, you may have the tendency to be pessimistic, detailed, meticulous, does this mean you are? if astrology were a science, you would automatically be all of these characteristics, however, you do have the free will to control this tendency, correct?

Again, for astrological tendencies to be born out by the data, we would not need anything close to saying "all virgos are pessimistic." All we would need is something to the effect that "there is a statistically significant correlation between being a virgo and having the characteristic of being pessimistic."

So, for instance, if we find that virgos as a population had (say) a 60% chance of being characterized as pessimistic as opposed to the other signs who might have an average of (say) 50% chance of correlation, then as long as the sample size is big enough, we have strong statistical evidence that a virgo has a higher tendency to be pessimistic as compared to the average non-virgo, even if there are still plenty of virgos who cannot be properly characterized as such.

Of course there might be some conflation here if there are other signs that tend to be pessimistic according to astrology as well. To correct for this, we could say that if there is some set of birthtimes that, according to astrology, have a tendency to be pessimistic as contrasted with another set of birthtimes that, according to astrology, have a tendency to be optimistic, this should be born out by the data as well.

But the basic idea is that if there are tendencies, then there are statistical correlations (by definition), and a properly conducted study should be able to find and demonstrate these correlations.

By the way Monique, I didn't say I believe in astrology, I only said we should keep an open mind.

 

[Monique]

Thank you for re-emphasizing my point hypnagogue, I am really stumped why Kerrie is so closed minded about scientific proof.

I never closed my mind towards astrology, I even acknowledged the fact that I can see the moon having an effect on people, or that simply knowing your chart will change your behaviour.

monique, can human free will be catagorized and statistically analyzed?

If you take a large enough sample: yes, you can. As I said before I have dealt with genes and disease and how they predispose people. If you have a bad gene you are not going to get the disease per definition. There are environmental conditions that alter that chance. Statistics will point out a deviation that people with a bad gene have a stronger tendency to develop disease compared to a general population.

The exact same test can be done for astrology, and I already posted a scheme by which such prove can be found.

this is the huge variable that "disproves" astrology as a science...as a virgo, you may have the tendency to be pessimistic, detailed, meticulous, does this mean you are?

If astrology holds any truth, yes there would be a tendency for a group of virgos to be more pessimistic than the general population. This can be measured. Ask whole your city to fill out a questionaire: would you define yourself as pessimistic. Then go and compare the virgo group with the whole group, you should find a deviation from the null value.

how much of astrology do you really know with your own studies and experience monique?

I published a paper in which I analyzed the genome for a gene that predisposes families to a disease (like you alcoholism example), I know how statistics can prove things. There are very ingenious methods to fish out the minutest effects.

so for monique, astrology will not be proven to be accurate or true because of this factor until she educates herself with astrology without the factor of science in the way...

I don't have to know anything about a theory to test the effect. Science is about being objective, not subjective.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If one knows nothing of a subject, how does one develop a good test? Sometime it takes a lot of work to properly interpret claims that are based on human experience.

I'm really not defending astrology; I was a little impressed once or twice but that's about it. Really I am suggesting that good tests and studies are not so easy to find. Take for example the wild fluctuations in recommended diets. I can probably produce hundreds of tests and studies that seem to contradict each other. The latest, after first being told that eggs are good, then that cholesterol is bad, then that only the LDLs are bad and that HDLs are good, two days ago it was reported that no, HDLs may also be bad. In my life I have seen high protein, high complex carb, no fat, low fat, some fat, and now again high protein diets [edit: almost forgot the latest - no carb] come into fashion all based on the latest study. This is science: Complex issues usually require a great deal of study and time if we are to wring out the essential facts. How many serious large scale studies have done on astrology? I’d bet the number is less than the number that are in conflict with each other over the subject of diet.

 

[Monique]

The difference is that the one is being tested, investigated and improved. Many of the diets are popular interpretations of the real science, like the sun horoscopes would be. If you claim that HDLs are bad, you go and test a whole lot of people for their HDL levels and see if they are better or worse off with the value they have, whether there is any correlation between high HDL and heart disease for instance.

I myself have done such an investigation correlating gene polymorphisms with myocardial infarctions in a meta-analysis of the literature. I would only claim that such a polymorphism had an effect if I could find a statistical correlation. If I don't find the correlation, I wouldn't claim that the polymorphism has an effect on the disease deterioration.

Ofcourse the investigation is not done yet. You could start putting in a lot of covariates that you believe are also influencing the disease phenotype, like diet, severity of disease, age, gender. The field of statistics is really advanced these days, especially with the advent of the sequencing of the human genome.

You know that researchers are giving medical tests to whole population subgroups? They then sequence their whole genome, after which they do HUGE statistical analysis where they try to correlate disease phenotype with marker state. With family data they construct huge pedigrees and they write down cofactors that could be influencing the analysis and correct for those.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The difference is that the one is being tested, investigated and improved. Many of the diets are popular interpretations of the real science, like the sun horoscopes would be. If you claim that HDLs are bad, you go and test a whole lot of people for their HDL levels and see if they are better or worse off with the value they have, whether there is any correlation between high HDL and heart disease for instance.

The point is that assuming the report on NBC is correct, we have been shown that HDLs are good, and now that HDLs are bad. Surely both results were based on good science; but clearly one of them is wrong or the issue is more complex than a simple good/bad rating. In either case this sort of thing has happened many times. Also, you completely ignore the possibility that the influence of HDL levels might be related to some other coincidental behavor; maybe people who consume a lot of HDLs tend to have high stress. Based on your example, to announce that HDLs are good or bad may mean nothing. If like astrology we are trying to find if HDL consumption even influences human health, I'd say that so far the results are mixed.

You know that researchers are giving medical tests to whole population subgroups? They then sequence their whole genome, after which they do HUGE statistical analysis where they try to correlate disease phenotype with marker state. With family data they construct huge pedigrees and they write down cofactors that could be influencing the analysis and correct for those.

So you feel that astrology is being studied implicity? I guess that's possible but I don't see this as inevitable. For example, how many genetists have contacted expert astrologers so that they would know if significant data relates to astrological claims? Would any geneticist include this observation in their papers?

 

[tribdog]

I've seen horoscopes that give a sign's "lucky lotto numbers" if there was any validity to the subject wouldn't everyone's numbers be the same?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In all of these studies that are done, especially when it comes to issues of the mind, has anyone ever factored in the unique characteristics of people who are willing to take part in studies? Just wondering...seriously.

Also, since stress is bad, and since all these studies cause me to stress over the best lifestyle choices, I believe that all of these studies are bad for my health.

Edit: Monique, I misread your last post the first time so I edited my last post.

 

[Monique]

Reports have been published in peer-reviewed journals that if a baby is born in the summer, they have a higher risk for developing intracranial aneurysms later in life around their forties. Also aneurysms tend to rupture in mornings, there seems to be a circadian rhythm involved. There was another report to do with mothers of a child and aneurysms.. something dubious.. I can't remember it now, but it got published in a peer-reviewed journal. Even, aneurysms have been found to rupture when barometric pressure is low. You could do the same with a sun sign and see if there is a correlation.

I haven't heard about the HDLs being bad, I'd like to review that report and give my opinion. I still stand at my position that if something has a real effect, it will show in the data. If the HDL reports are contradictory than either the way it was tested is different, or there is no correlation.
Sure it might also be coincidental behaviour. I myself have implimented that fact in my own research. You can take into account the number of affected members in a family and the signal of the sample will increase enormously, in fact you are taking a surrogate measure of the gene and measuring that. Also, I don't measure the gene itself, rather I am measuring markers that are nearby on the genome. The closer the marker is to the gene, the stronger the signal will get.

The same with the diets, until they show me some real numbers I'm not going to claim one is better over the other. I might still hypothesize how one could be better over the other.

 

[Monique]

The point is that assuming the report on NBC is correct

Never assume that general news agencies supply correct information on scientific topics