Replying to Phaedrus 66601284 (no idea why the Post Message button is just hanging again - seems to be an off again on again feature of HotCopper. This post goes into the test forum fine - but wouldn't post to MSB forum first time - I'll try again)
"
Youwillnotbe able to arrange the numbers of censored and the numbers of eventsinany wayto make all the numbers given in figure 1 be true. Itsa matter of counting."
Looksaccurate.
Thenphaedrus says -
Wrong.You should have gone to Specsavers. Your 'theory' proceeds on a
manifestlyfalse premise. Your house of cards and all of your consequentialspeculation collapses under it. And you could have spared us all thelecture on Kaplan-Meier curves.
Iread this as characteristic phaedrus grandstanding – he doesn’tsay where I’m wrong, what my theory is that has a manifestly falsepremise. Its all about building up the drama for some presumedrevelation, this is actually how I see this.
Lookat Figures 1 and 2 again - i
ndetail this time.
Oncemore the suggestion, after the spec savers quip, and consistent withBazsa’s suggestion is the that I have overlooked something in thedetail – but I haven’t.
Forreference, here once more is the graphic which Prof. Kurtzberg usedin her summary poster presentation of key Remestemcel-l data,
The graphic appearsto be good. But phaedrus doesn’t seem to me to see all of it.
I'm inserting his figures which I screenshot with my comments
andwhich you have chosen to absolutely deny the validity of, basedseemingly on only the most cursory examination of an image posted byASTCT/ CIBMTR on the internet.
I have said thenumbers in the figures as presented are wrong. Still say that.
Thiswas not a presentation of a scientific paper. No detailed data wastabled. But I note that didn't faze you in your 'analysis'.
No I took the factsas they were presented. Did some reading on Kaplan-Meier. Checked andrechecked and rechecked again. Then posted my conclusions.
Lookclosely at what happened with censored SR-aGVHD patient datasets/events between Years 3 and 4 (becausethat's where your 'theory' can be readily tested). Ignoreeverything else (because it's irrelevant,except seemingly to you as part of your'stream-of-consciousness'-style narrative):
Andthere it is – that is where phaedrus pulls the magiciansswitcheroo. Its like the Wizard of Oz – pay not attention to theman behind the curtain.
Itis not for you to narrow my theory or my statements to just the partsthat you want to take issue with – that reframing is a deceit or anerror on your part. But it seems (going by the tick count and thegreat analysis tick count – 35 – wow – ) that 35 others havefallen for you switcheroo manover.
Iwonder how many apologies I’ll get.
Nextphaedrus posts Figures 1 and 2 – and they appear to me to beabsolutely faithful reproductions from the conference website –they seem to the same as what I’ve been referring to – its justthat phaedrus wants to look at only part of what they contain whereasI hadn’t so limited my consideration (indeed in my previous post Ispecifically pointed out two Grade C censored in the period betweenyear 1 end and year 2, and those still appear, I can see them in thefigures 2 (also figures 1) that phaedrus posted as drawn verticallines through the Grade C curve.
Analyticalhints for non-holding 'truthseekers' and 'science' types:
Sosay’s phaedrus
A.Take your biased CYP-standard issue glasses off.
Irrelevantsuggestion just to pander to the prejudices of readers by suggestinga bias in my analysis.
B.Look only at changes between Years 3 and 4 in Fig.1.
Nothat is an error or a deceit to so reframe things. To consider onlypart of what is on the figure is to either deliberately oraccidentally misunderstand and or misrepresent my point and it leadsto incomplete counting.
C.Observe that there were 5 censored patients in total during that year(1 Grade B, 1 Grade C, & 3 Grade Ds).
Sophaedrus increments the Grade C count by one for the changes betweenthe three year point and the four year point. So (2from earlier – he has removed from the frame of analysis (but Ididn’t nor did those that prepared the original figures – theyput them on the figures and readers can still see them there). 8 fromthe count at the end – also the 8 is placed on the figure by thosethat made up the figure I didn’t invent it – its there count notmine. 8 + 2 = 10. And phaedrus adds 1. That’s 11. That’scounting. But look at the N(number) of censored under Grade C writtenon Figure 2. That number is 10. That is not 11.
Therest of my analysis is correct as I wrote it – its just thatphaedrus didn’t follow it – he misrepresented it. He pulled adon’t look over there – the relevant bits are just here – andit seems a bunch of others that didn’t read or understand what Iwrote went right alone with the misdirection.
D.Look very closely at the coloured lines & the vertical tic marksbetween Years 3 and 4 in Fig.2.
Ialready had.
E.Note the chronological sequence was 1 x Grade B, then 1 x Grade C &then 3 x Grade D censored datapoints on the 3 streams. The Grade Chorizontal line (i.e. the survival event line) almost completelyoverlaps the Grade D event line thoughout Year 4.
Iagree 1 Grade B is clearly first in the sequence in the time intervalphaedrus references. But the Grade C and Grade D could be ambiguous(it doesn’t matter the ambiguity changes nothing for me). I canconcede all phaedrus interpretation and he still fails to count upthat 2 + 8 + 1 = 11 Grade C censoreds.
Thatmeans patients in those 2 graded groups had the same survival risk/probability
through the entire year!
------
Phaedrus I reckon I'm the own owed the apology by you.
Not holding my breathe but you might surprise me.
(20min delay)