Originally Posted by
Mesabah
https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/23/3/141/726098
The reason I was arguing benzodiazepines, simply because it was statistically most likely, and the initial effects she described were most similar. For all I know the captain could have spent years researching, and came up with the perfect concoction of drugs to be undetectable.
You weren't just arguing benzodiazepines, you were arguing:
"Statistically, the chances of her story being true are extremely remote."
And you come up with THIS reference to say that? It is an article with NO INCIDENCE OR PREVALENCE DATA WHATSOEVER regarding the OCCURENCE of the condition itself? It is an assessment of the relative frequencies of laboratory reports without any normalizing for population or any other ramdomizing factor.
This is a classic "look what I found" article for the Journal of Irreproducible Results, and has no statistical validity whatsoever, even for the question it purports to deal with, and even less (if possible) for assessing the veracity of the flight officer's claims.
Have you ever HAD a probability and statistics course?