I think you are telling me I'm about a clear as that static.
Sorry about that Wilbs. But this science stuff is hard to communicate when people have very different levels of understanding and although some (like me do come to learn here) a lot don't come to HotCopper to learn at all.
I wonder if you would have been able to make any more sense of a slide like this one (in my opinion its very difficult to understand and would be to many university science students - but
that just my opinion) had you been in the visitors gallery at the ODAC meeting when SI was speaking about it.
I do think its an extremely important slide though. Very much key to MSBs mechanism of action and potency assay. Its where Silviu was showing a linkage (an association) between what is seen in vitro (so at potency test - release test time) and in the blood taken from the bodies of patients.
And I do think (hope) I can show you something slightly interesting about it (I think anyway) that you'll (or anyone without any science really but maybe a little bit of early high school math) may be able to see.
In the top slide - I've drawn a red box around is shown MSB's original. But the numbers on the horizontal scaling line are not all there. 10 through 50 are missing. If 10 through 50 are put back. The diagonel line (the so called line of best fit through the dots) couldn't possibly touch the 50 on the vertical - it would have to bend.
My first impression seeing that slide (I didn't understand what it was showing - but I did understand there was something inherently wrong about it, was that I was looking at something like an Escher drawing. In that the mathematical and spatial relationships were impossible.
I find and apparently others find the illusion in Escher's drawings interesting - here the people walking around seem to be going both up and down at the same time -which is impossible.
Understanding the illusion may take some of the fun out of it - by I do that anyway (sorry - compulsively analytical I suppose) - and see it also like this.
I don't really want to talk about Escher a lot and I'm sorry if I've bored you.
That the diagonal line of best fit won't touch the y axis at 50 is really of little scientific consequence (everything important is happening on the negative side of the horizontal line anyway) but I think maybe there's a point to be made that when complicated data is presented to people with various levels of understanding (some of the ODAC panel were not scientists - there were patient advocates and such) that misleading impressions (I'm not saying it was intentional) can be conveyed by structuring the presentation of the data in certain ways.
When I talk mainly to dachopper about science its mostly because he is a holder that seems willing to dig into the details. He seems to have an interest level similar to my own.
If I talk to him at a level interesting to me - much of what is said is going to be perceived by many posters as white noise. But that's because they've not done the background reading in many cases not because what I'm saying is mangled. Though certainly I do my fair bit of message mangling as well.
I don't come to HotCopper to entertain - no one pays me to perform for them - but some want to throw tomatos rather than just look at something else if they are not entertained.
Anyone can not open my posts if they don't want to.
If to you my sciencey interests and statements come across as white noise or alien-speak then please understand - I mean you (like in a sci fi movie from the 50's or so) no harm.
(20min delay)
