The latest from our COLUMNIST SECTION:
Tuesday, Feb 01, 10:35 AMMike S. Adams
Left State University
Sunday, Jan 30, 12:41 PMDoug Giles
Hey, Chris Matthews: I Like Big Guns and I Cannot Lie
Saturday, Jan 29, 09:16 AMMichael Coren
Defender to defendant
Saturday, Jan 29, 08:46 AMSalim Mansur
U.S. can’t afford to ignore world in crisis
Sunday, Jan 23, 07:37 AMDoug Giles
Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God
Saturday, Jan 22, 08:32 AMMike S. Adams
Kermit the Dog
Saturday, Jan 22, 08:24 AMMichael Coren
Grief or glamour?
Saturday, Jan 22, 08:11 AMSalim Mansur
Tunisia just one Arab regime going stale
Friday, Jan 21, 12:00 PMTheo Caldwell
The TSA Tea Party
Saturday, Jan 15, 07:48 AMMichael Coren
Forget blame game
Saturday, Jan 15, 07:38 AMSalim Mansur
Beware of China’s meteoric rise
Tuesday, Jan 11, 09:12 AMMike S. Adams
Welcome to Personal Responsibility 101
Monday, Jan 10, 08:12 AMDoug Giles
Snookie’s Smut or Cowboy Values?
Saturday, Jan 08, 09:44 AMMichael Coren
Tube for lefty boobs
Saturday, Jan 08, 09:42 AMSalim Mansur
Bloody start to New Year
Wednesday, Jan 05, 04:42 PMAnn Coulter
Tuesday, Jan 04, 07:20 AMMike S. Adams
Does Fort Worth Ever Cross Your Mind?
Monday, Jan 03, 11:54 AMSteven Milloy
EPA’s Mercurial Hypocrisy
Sunday, Jan 02, 09:45 AMDoug Giles
2011 Resolution: Annoy the Left 365
Sunday, Jan 02, 09:35 AMDavid Warren
Robin Hoodism is on the rise
Free-Market Capitalist Consumer Information:
These companies choose to advertise on the
(Links lead to mailing addresses)
• AIG (insur)
• Air Canada
• AOL Travel
• Bank of Montreal ("BMO")
• Best Western
• Canada Protection Plan
• Canada Revenue Agency (!)
• Canadian Tire Fin Serv
• Chip Home Income Plan
• Cold FX
• Desjardins (insurance)
• Directbuy, Inc
• Edward Jones
• General Motors
• Grand and Toy
• Grey Power (insurance)
• H&R Block
• Hilton Hotels
• iContact email marketing
• Infinity (cars)
• Koodoo mobile
• Lens Crafters
• National Post
• RBC (Royal bank)
• Rogers Cable
• Shaw Cable
• Texas Travel
• The Co-operators (ins)
• Tim Hortons
Please read more here.
PTBC Columnist Team
Columnists -- with bite! We feature conservative-friendly writers from Canada and the U.S. who help clarify the difference between liberals and conservatives. All have personally agreed to be a part of our team here at PTBC.
Researchers and the media did their best this week to scare military personnel and their families with the widely reported headline, “Military Service Doubles Suicide Risk.”
“Male veterans are twice as likely as their civilian counterparts to die by suicide,” Portland State University professor Mark Kaplan told the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “We don’t know why. But this finding may foreshadow what is going to come with the current cohort of military personnel who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq,” he added.
Published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (July 2007), Kaplan’s study consisted of 320,890 men who were followed for 12 years. As it is a statistical correlation study – rather than an investigation into whether an actual cause-and-effect relationship exists between military service and suicide – I naturally was skeptical. From the very beginning, the study didn’t disappoint me.
The study summary stated that the veterans’ suicide rate was 2.04 times that of non-veterans. When I read the study to see how the 2.04 figure was derived, I found no explanation. Mysteriously, the 2.04 figure did not even appear in the study itself – that’s pretty unusual.
I did, however, find a bar graph in the study that presented 2.13 as the difference in suicide rate between veterans and non-veterans.
You might think that this solved the mystery. A typographical or editorial foul-up must have inadvertently led to the 2.04-figure, rather than the 2.13 figure, being spotlighted in the study summary, right? We’ll get to that later. In the meantime, my discovery of the 2.13-figure only deepened the mystery.
Kaplan wrote in his study that the 2.13-figure represented the difference in suicide rates between veterans and non-veterans after statistical adjustment to account for other potential risk factors for suicide, including age, marital status, living arrangement, race, education, family income, employment status, geographic region, interval since last visit to a doctor, self-rated health and body mass index.
This list seemed impressively comprehensive and ostensibly strengthened the case for his claimed result – until, that is, I discovered that a key potential suicide risk factor apparently was omitted from his statistical adjustment.
There’s a table in Kaplan’s study in which he presents the difference in veteran suicide rates by individual risk factors, including age, race, marital status, living arrangement, education, employment status, region of residence, urban/rural locality, self-rated health, body mass index, psychiatric conditions and activity limitation.
With the exception of race, education and activity limitation, none of these risk factors were statistically significantly associated with increased suicide rates. But since race, education and activity limitation were associated with increased suicide risk, all three should have been among the potential risk factors Kaplan considered when he did his statistical adjustments to produce the 2.13-figure.
If you compare the above-mentioned lists of suicide risk factors, however, you’ll note that while activity limitation was identified as a significant risk factor for suicide, it apparently was not included in the statistical adjustment that produced the 2.13-figure.
And of the three statistically significant risk factors for suicide, activity limitation was by far the greatest – veterans with activity limitations had a 4.44 times greater rate of suicide than veterans with no activity limitations, as compared to race (3.23) and education (2.67).
Is the omission of the activity limitation factor another study typo? Was it inadvertently omitted from the statistical adjustment? Or was it omitted from the analysis because it would produce a non-result that rendered the study non-publishable and non-newsworthy?
It certainly cannot be said that Kaplan was ignorant of the significance of the activity limitation risk factor. “According to Kaplan, the risk of suicide was highest among men whose activities were limited by health problems,” reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Kaplan also published a study earlier this year entitled, “Physical illness, functional limitations and suicide risk: A population-based study” in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (Jan. 2007) in which he stated, “After controlling for potential [confounding risk factors], functional limitations were shown to be a significant predictor of suicide.”
When I contacted Kaplan about these issues, he immediately acknowledged that the 2.04-figure was a typo and that the 2.13-figure was correct. Interestingly, he also provided me with a dubious error bar for the 2.13 figure. When I asked him about that, another acknowledgment of error was made. These may seem like small errors, but they certainly build no confidence.
As to the crucial omission of activity limitation as a risk factor, Kaplan deferred responding, writing that he needed to consult with one of his statistician co-authors.
As of the time of this column, I had not heard back from Kaplan on that point. But you might think that a lead study author who gave many media interviews this week would be readily familiar with such a key component of his analysis. Of all the researchers I’ve interviewed over the years about their results, none has ever failed to immediately provide an answer to such a basic question.
I don’t know whether Kaplan ultimately will produce a satisfactory explanation for the activity limitation omission – the study’s remaining mystery. In some ways it doesn’t matter.
The study’s other shortcomings – particularly that veteran suicide rates weren’t higher across the vast majority of demographic groups examined, which indicates that military service itself isn’t a causative factor in suicide – are alone enough to debunk it and the scary headlines it spawned.
But the wide reporting of a paper with such major and easily discoverable problems – as well as Kaplan’s questionable effort to foment concern about suicide risk among veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq – reflects poorly on him and his co-authors, the publishing journal and the media.
©2005-08 STEVEN J. MILLOY. Posted at ProudToBeCanadian.ca with the express permission of Steven Milloy. Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com where the motto is: “All the junk that’s fit to debunk”, as well as CSRWatch.com. Steven Milloy is an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center. He’s also an investment adviser at an investment fund called Free Enterprise Action Fund.
• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.
• Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Steven Milloy +