http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475951/

Some excerpts;

It is frequently implied that our study is inferior to case-control studies for testing LNT. Aside from the fact that case-control studies do not have the statistical power to test LNT in the low dose region, this ignores the inherent weaknesses in treatments of CF (Confounding Factors) in case-control studies. An individual’s risk of lung cancer depends on a multitude of factors on a molecular, cellular, intercellular, hormonal, etc. level that are not understood, not readily measurable, and therefore not considered in these studies. There are also a large number of potential CFs that could be, but are not included because of time, cost, or other practical limitations. In practice, case-control studies treat only a very few CFs, often using multivariate regression which is a process of limited validity, and frequently depending on marginal statistics…

Our study has many important advantages over these case-control studies. It treats a far wider diversity of CF, and even includes a strong argument that an unidentified CF cannot be important—no such arguments are available in case-control studies which can easily be rendered invalid by an unrecognized CF. Our study largely avoids use of multivariate regression with its inherent weaknesses pointed out in Sec. 2.2 above and elsewhere. It includes a method for treating cases where no data are available on a required variable, by use of “plausibility of correlation”. It includes a wide variety of geographic areas and population characteristics, whereas case-control studies are normally confined to a single, or at most a few local areas. Statistical uncertainties, one of the greatest limitations in many case-control studies, are virtually eliminated.

With all these advantages, the problem in accepting our study is difficult to understand unless someone can suggest a plausible specific CF that could possibly explain our discrepancy. It must be specific in order to address the issue of plausibility, but it is not necessary to show that it does explain our discrepancy, only that it might possibly explain it. If such a suggestion is forthcoming, I would be eager to address it. I have tried very hard to solicit such a suggestion but have had only marginal success. Therefore, until such a CF is suggested, it seems reasonable to conclude that LNT fails our experimental test and must therefore be invalid in the low dose region covered by Fig 1.

Paula : D