For those of you following my series on collegian calculus you may recall I used the college's own numbers to demonstrate how it works but then using the rules of pure math was forced to throw all their numbers out(the large anomoly hidden inside the token numerator). But even if the college's numbers can't be used for scientific purposes ( empirical data), I would like to call attention to an error I made in my original calculation.
I wish I had somebody to point out these mistakes as I do not wish to appear overtly biased or even subconsciously as was the case here. I will admit the college's animus towards the public (their blunt instrument) was the cause of my internalized bias which led me to err even though something was nagging at me the whole time that my math was suspect. I won't apologize too loudly however as the error led to an epiphany.
You will recall how I eliminated 100 from 120( ruling against a doctor over a 10 year period) to approximate how many of the remainder were conventional cases of malpractice not sexual impropriety. So I figured 20/6500 was a solid approximation but technically that was wrong because I failed to subtract 100 from the denominator as well. 20/6400 is the correct ratio which yields .003125, a difference of .000048 and using rules of significant digits still rounds to 3/1000. In other words in a population of 6500, 100 people could be eliminated from the equation yet the ratio remains the same.
So which ratio would be considered the threshold to be still considered "rare ". Or in terms of the government, what numbers would they consider acceptable collateral damage in their experiments with Cipro? 100/6500?, 3/1000?, 1/1000? Unfortunately we cannot know how rare superinfection is because the college's numbers don't qualify as scientific data given the anomalies present.
The fact is this whole argument about Cipro side effects being rare is just a distraction, a smoke screen or a red herring. Is it necessary to quantify a ratio when you consider the issue is not so much the rarity of side effects but the certainty?
Rare may seem a practical argument but if it's not random then it's irrelevant. CIPRO SUPERINFECTION is unavoidable given the warnings and safety protocols were eliminated in favor of the college's thin, engineered protocol. Yet it's totally foreseeable given the knowledge of the actual manufacturer recommendations and the proper testing (in a test tube). Cipro Superinfection is not rare, but an engineered reverse lottery which is not random, but rigged, given the event is foreseeable and preventable if it weren't completely ignored.