9/29 birth control methods include failure percentages in a year, but of
the successful percentages, how many of them are infertile? In
another word do companies take in account of couples who can't
conceive, and take them out of the statistics?
\_ Think about this for a minute.
\_ if you're infertile, why would you use birth control? and even if
you did (because you didn't know), the product would still 'work'
for you. Is this supposed to be a troll or just dumb? It seems
more bizarre than troll.
\_ This is actually a very important question. And yes, studies
take this into account (or they should) when rating
birth control products. Depending on how they conduct the
study and who does it, the assumption is that couples are
fertile and in their prime. Studies like this usually prescreen
and preselect couples, and they typically have a control group.
Since these studies are widely used in academia and are typically
published in JAMA they should be relatively accurate. However,
even the best studies have been proven wrong in the past. JAMA
and the AMA as well as the FDA are hardly failsafe in their
scrutiny.
\_ Heh. You should hear what an epidemologist I heard today
had to say about JAMA. Meanwhile consider the statement
'If it's published in X, it should be Y,' for various values
of X and Y. For instance X = internet, Y = true.
\- yeah my friends in stat/biostat also roll their eyes
when trying to do sophisticated statistics with doctors
who think they know everything. --psb
\_ infertile != sterile. infertile means the gametes are there
but they have a tough time meeting or going forward in
development after they do meet.
\_ sort of like the bar scene? |