Spot on analysis, pretty much mirrors my own experience. The only data point I would add would be the widespread use of '95% efficacy' which turned out to be a *relative risk* ( for the first time ever on a pharma product? ) on a small sample size.
"not subjecting oneself to a treatment leaves one with the option to do so in the future" is a key point within developing data sets.
Spot on analysis, pretty much mirrors my own experience. The only data point I would add would be the widespread use of '95% efficacy' which turned out to be a *relative risk* ( for the first time ever on a pharma product? ) on a small sample size.
"not subjecting oneself to a treatment leaves one with the option to do so in the future" is a key point within developing data sets.
Spot on analysis, pretty much mirrors my own experience. The only data point I would add would be the widespread use of '95% efficacy' which turned out to be a *relative risk* ( for the first time ever on a pharma product? ) on a small sample size.
"not subjecting oneself to a treatment leaves one with the option to do so in the future" is a key point within developing data sets.
More succinctly put, but my point as well.
Yes. Being in the “control” group had real value.