Fibrosarcomas- The Myth Dissolved

From: Cheryl


An example of long-acting could be depo medrol, couldn't it. sigh

Here's an abstract of the study. Although it does mention prednisolone
acetate, as the OP mentioned, it's believed that VAS may be a genetic
predisposition:

http://www.geocities.com/~kremersark/javma_11_2003.html

and also: http://www.kittyvillage.org/articles.html

A really good site about VAS is www.catshots.com
Lauren
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

(Osiris Virus) wrote in message . com...
(...)
sarcoma formation. For FeLV vaccines, non-advuanted vs. adjuvanted,
the P values were 1.00. Recall high school statistics for a second- a
P value of less that 0.05 indicates that the similarities have a
greater than 95% chance of being tied to eachother in some way.
Conversely, a P value of 1.00 means that there is 0% chance that the
factors are significant to eachother.

Hm, you seem to have run this bit of your post thru' Joe Zawinul's
favourite vocoder.

A p-value of (say) 0.05 means that 5% of the time you did the
experiment you would expect to get a difference in means between
conditions of the size found in the study (or greater still) even if,
in reality, the test populations were *not* different. I.e., the
difference would occur purely by chance.

Trying to make that clearer:

- You do some experiment comparing two different test conditions or
groups.
- The means on some measure between these two groups are found to be
different.
- You get a p-value of 0.05 when you run some statistical test
comparing these means.
- Your test populations are either actually different, or they are
not.
- The p-value of 0.05 says that the size of difference (or a bigger
difference yet) you got would be found in groups that did not actually
differ, 5% of the time, purely through chance.

Hm, I seem to have run this bit of my post thru' Joe Zawinul's
favourite vocoder, but at least the pitch is now accurate!

Steve.

(Osiris Virus) wrote in message . com...
(...)
sarcoma formation. For FeLV vaccines, non-advuanted vs. adjuvanted,
the P values were 1.00. Recall high school statistics for a second- a
P value of less that 0.05 indicates that the similarities have a
greater than 95% chance of being tied to eachother in some way.
Conversely, a P value of 1.00 means that there is 0% chance that the
factors are significant to eachother.

Hm, you seem to have run this bit of your post thru' Joe Zawinul's
favourite vocoder.

A p-value of (say) 0.05 means that 5% of the time you did the
experiment you would expect to get a difference in means between
conditions of the size found in the study (or greater still) even if,
in reality, the test populations were *not* different. I.e., the
difference would occur purely by chance.

Trying to make that clearer:

- You do some experiment comparing two different test conditions or
groups.
- The means on some measure between these two groups are found to be
different.
- You get a p-value of 0.05 when you run some statistical test
comparing these means.
- Your test populations are either actually different, or they are
not.
- The p-value of 0.05 says that the size of difference (or a bigger
difference yet) you got would be found in groups that did not actually
differ, 5% of the time, purely through chance.

Hm, I seem to have run this bit of my post thru' Joe Zawinul's
favourite vocoder, but at least the pitch is now accurate!

Steve.