I am not a mathematician, but if the probability of not seeing clinical improvement is 1/3, then the probability that all three people would see no improvement would be (1/3)*(1/3)*/(1/3). That is around 4%. Not a good start and maybe my understanding of probabilities is wrong as well. I personally still believe there is promise in this technology.
There's statistics and then there's common sense. This wouldn't be the first time that this company has rushed an underperforming product to market. That combined with the lackluster "testimonials" and the fact that Dr. Lim was likely brought in out of desperation puts the existing user experiences into perspective. At the end of the day you can take all the passive aggressive swipes you want and it isn't going to change the fact that the device is preforming at a level that is inconsistent with the company's claims of efficacy.
Here's a statistic for you:
I mostly agree with what you say here. We're just not at the point where we can call it.
Yes definitely. There are a whole lot of other parameters we are looking at as well. However, remember that correlation is not causation.
Unless someone is at a window just between moderate and severe, then even a small improvement in loudness itself would make a huge difference in day to day life.
By that logic the probability of getting two responders and one non responder would be:
Dude, you're the only one taking swipes. I'm just stating facts. We can't call it yet, our sample size is too small and unreliable. I agree it's a little underwhelming, but then again it's still early.
Any reasonable person would have to admit that at this point Lenire has failed to live up to the hype. You can spout all of the statistical jargon you want and it doesn't change that. If the device was consistently producing positive results you wouldn't resort to being openly dismissive of other points of view simply because you "took a class". It's the kind of tactic that people resort to when they sense they're losing an argument.
No, it's not. You forgot to add to that (2/3)x(1/3)x(2/3) + (1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3) which sums up to the right probability of around 44%. Sorry for being a nerd, just thought that false information should be corrected.
Depends on what the hype was and who was creating it. It wasn't Neuromod. They've only ever gone by their statistics.
LOL. Is it really that hard to understand? The sample size so far is negligent. This is exactly why trials tend to be done on hundreds and thousands of people. Not 4. You can come up with all sorts of wild statistics with small sample sizes.
Again, depends. There hasn't actually been an argument given. Especially not by you.
Rather than presuming what my reaction would be you could try actually make a case?
Yes I know, I was giving an example of why the quoted logic was wrong.No, it's not. You forgot to add to that (2/3)x(1/3)x(2/3) + (1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3) which sums up to the right probability of around 44%. Sorry for being a nerd, just thought that false information should be corrected.
And since we are talking statistics, when do you @PeterPan think that we could have a first look on the first results of the Lenire User Experience survey?
Did I say we should write it off? You're strawmanning. I said the data is not encouraging, and objectively speaking, it's not. You can spin it anyway you like, but those are the facts.
Well, it's only 2/3 who have completed the 12 week treatment. We don't have 9 complete reviews by any means.
I don't believe my logic was wrong. Please explain. According to Neuromod's statistics, 2 out of 3 should see clinically significant improvement and 1 out of 3 should not. So the probability that "three rolls of the dice" would all be non-responders I believe should be 1/3*1/3*1.3.
And that's why I quoted you because you tried to show that Watasha's logic was wrong by quoting a wrong number/calculation. The quoted logic is unfortunately right and 3 of course is no sample size, but 9 people is, albeit a tiny one. Either you take no improvement of 3 people, or only 2 out of nine, the success rate according to the experiences of Tinnitus Talk members at this point in time doesn't look good.
My apologies, I misread and thought you were calculating 2 non responders and 1 responder i.e. 1/3*1/3*2/3.
Fine if you didn't say it. But then to the data. The data isn't encouraging, in the same way that a failure in a sample size of 1 isn't encouraging either. But you can't use it to draw any conclusions.
Don't assume on my behalf thanks. I said it in my previous post on this. If we get into the 30/40/50 patients and the majority are like @Cojackb and @ruud1boy then you won't find me leaping to Neuromod's defense.
You're playing Semitic games. The company has spent the past several years directly and indirectly attempting to generate excitement in their product in order to attract additional investors. That appears to be the one thing they've been very successful at. I'm starting to suspect that has been their primary focus all along and the effectiveness of the device is secondary to that.
It now seems likely that the device was underperforming in the trials. That would explain why they brought in Dr. Lim and offered him a financial stake in the company to help them "conclude" the trials. It's also worth noting that the release of the trial data has been pushed back another year.
I suspect that the "real world cases" are producing results similar to the results they were initially experiencing during the trials prior to bringing in Dr. Lim to bail them out. The lackluster testimonials are a strong indication of that.
You're desperately clinging to the hope that invoking the term "statistics" and waving it around like a magic wand is going to overcome the reality of this situation. That in addition to your dismissive use of "LOL" is basically a tacit admission that you're on the losing end of this argument.
There have been literally dozens.
I suggest you go back and read this entire thread.
Member