So cheer up. Every time you get a question wrong, think about what you could have done to get it right, and make sure to do that thing in future (in real life, not in inspirion).
If you get a low score (say 30%) - smile! You're learning lots.
If you keep getting 100%, the course is not for you, as you are probably a statistician or a bit sad in the head, to be so good at hard things.
My own score is often less than 100%.
i.e. I have to reword ~1-2 Qs or As per seminar, in light of comments.
Because of the 0.3%, i.e. 180,000 who die, and the few million who end up ill in hospital.
Doh.
1. Because despite having lived cosseted lives where everything is provided for us from cradle to grave, be it food, security, education, healthcare, or law and order,
SOMEHOW many young people I come across seem to have a higher sense of civic virtue than you...
If you had a high resolution map of everything what would you use?
How about tightest percent stenosis anywhere in coro?
If you thought it was great then you are going to rate a person with an isolated 75% stenosis of the distal RCA worse than a person with five 70%ish stenoses of each of the LAD, CX, RCA, Om1 and D1.
Suppose you motor-bike to work every day. @rallamee nags you, "Why don't you wear a crash helmet, it is safer, blah blah blah."
If you wear a crash helmet today (ONLY), how will it improve your survival curve?
(Hazard = death risk on a particular day)
That baffled people, sorry. This isn't supposed to be the hard bit.
Wearing a crash helmet TODAY makes my motorcycle riding safer for me TODAY.
I go back to no-helmet from tomorrow onwards. Does the fact that I had worn a helmet today, make tomorrows ride safer?
Being a non-smoker today helps me not die today.
Does whether I smoke today have any influence on the probability of me surviving through the whole of 8 Dec 2030, GIVEN THAT I survive up to the end of 7 Dec 2030?
It is absolutely hilarious! There are several giveaways that this is not really a doctor. Which can you spot?
Thank you to various people who sent me details of circumventing the Telegraph's paywall. I generally avoid doing that, for articles where the _authors_ would want me to pay to read (as it is their living).
I subscribe to publications to support them.
SCIENTIFIC papers are written by people who would be absolutely delighted to give you copies of all their work for free. They have zero interest in anyone charging you to read their work
So I am happy to let them communicate with me via sci-hub.se or any other means
The FDA does not allow or disallow particular things to be used as a placebo. They use their common sense.
My common sense says "Mineral oil is inert, because (a) it is mineral rather than animal or vegetable, and (b) we use Paraffin as a laxative, because it is inert."
Unfortunately my common sense is wrong.
That's life.
To their credit, the REDUCE-IT people and the EVAPORATE people did not *assume* it was inert. They tested that hypothesis.