AI
Sunday, April 05, 2020 1:55:38 PM
A few people have asked me to comment on this post. I don't have too much to add. mc1988 is exactly right-- there is no statistical change in ApoB levels reported relative to the control group. This is quite clear in Table 3 of Kurabayashi (pasted below).
It is interesting to note that Kurabayashi reports:
"The apolipoprotein B level in the eicosapentaenoic acid group was significantly lower at week 48 compared with the baseline level, but there was no significant difference between the groups."
So to be clear, Kurabayashi found NO statistically significant change at any of the timepoints between the control and treatment groups. But they did find a difference between treatment and baseline at week 48.
So, oddly, the flavor of error is similar to that made in Mori.
However, again, the correct comparison is clearly BETWEEN groups here (and is even more important, IMO). Why? Because the treatment group received E3 plus EPA and the control group received E3 only. So it is critical to compare between groups, because you have to disentangle the effects of E3 from the effects of EPA.
This error on Du's part seems a little more disingenuous than the Mori error, since Mori did not do the between group comparison (as they were not testing that hypothesis), whereas here, Kurabayashi absolutely did the comparison and reported it. It's almost as if she were cherry picking the paper to support her conclusion.
Edit: I am NOT suggesting Du was not acting with honorable intent. I find it likely that she was. What I am suggesting is that she made up her mind that the patent was invalid and was looking for reasons to support this conclusion. I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the method that she went about her reasoning is important, and I think this mistake may add some color to that methodology.
It is interesting to note that Kurabayashi reports:
"The apolipoprotein B level in the eicosapentaenoic acid group was significantly lower at week 48 compared with the baseline level, but there was no significant difference between the groups."
So to be clear, Kurabayashi found NO statistically significant change at any of the timepoints between the control and treatment groups. But they did find a difference between treatment and baseline at week 48.
So, oddly, the flavor of error is similar to that made in Mori.
However, again, the correct comparison is clearly BETWEEN groups here (and is even more important, IMO). Why? Because the treatment group received E3 plus EPA and the control group received E3 only. So it is critical to compare between groups, because you have to disentangle the effects of E3 from the effects of EPA.
This error on Du's part seems a little more disingenuous than the Mori error, since Mori did not do the between group comparison (as they were not testing that hypothesis), whereas here, Kurabayashi absolutely did the comparison and reported it. It's almost as if she were cherry picking the paper to support her conclusion.
Edit: I am NOT suggesting Du was not acting with honorable intent. I find it likely that she was. What I am suggesting is that she made up her mind that the patent was invalid and was looking for reasons to support this conclusion. I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the method that she went about her reasoning is important, and I think this mistake may add some color to that methodology.
