Originally Posted by
Excargodog
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?
I’m confused all around. Statistically unlikely is not a term really used in statistics. Statistical significance is something that statistics test for. What are we testing? What is the null hypothesis? The study posted wasn’t trying to state the majority of women who claimed to be drugged and raped aren’t drugged at all. It also wasn’t hypothesizing that the majority of women who are drugged and raped are done so with one particular drug over another. It was just a random sample. No statistical test was used on the data except converting the occurrences to percentages. This is getting way too nerdy.