I'm inclined to say the minimum while the hearing takes place. The Lancet editorial stuck me (and many others) as reprehensible, and I filed a comment to that extent on allstat.
Although the "1 in 73 million" grabbed the headlines in the original trial and again recently, I understand (or assume?) that Meadow is facing a range of charges relating to his conduct as a paediatrician, not as a statistician. One point I recall from the appeals procedure was that he claimed to have built his theories from extensive case notes, but had lost or destroyed these notes so could not justify his data.
Allan
***********************************************************************************
This email and any attachments are intended for the named recipient only. Its unauthorised use, distribution, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you have received it in error, please destroy all copies and notify the sender. In messages of a non-business nature, the views and opinions expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation from which it is sent. All emails may be subject to monitoring.
***********************************************************************************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|