a) Sample selection size varies for each experiment, depending on how large the whole group under investigation is or how much time it would take to sample a certain group (Rathburn, MacConnadchie, Zizler, Hill, & Moorman, 2012, p. 72) . Sample selection is important part of a studies experimental design because it usually decides how valid a study is. The validity of the sample size and study is usually decided through the peer-review process, which is one of the reasons why the peer review process is so essential to scientific research (p. 73). The sample size of for the Avastin study was 1401 patients, with some of the sample receiving Avastin and chemotherapy, and the rest receiving a placebo and chemotherapy (Goldacre, 2010, para.
…show more content…
3). Anecdotes are not a reliable source of evidence because the variables are not controlled (para. 8). Mankind also has a fallible memory and tend to only remember one side of a story when retelling it, making the data biased (para. 19). Anecdotes are however still useful in science because they help bridge the gap between science based medicine and the public (para. 25). Anecdotes are also helpful because they are real life experience, therefore easier for a patient to relate to than some scientific facts (para. …show more content…
5). Some people may benefit more or less from the drug and it was found that some lives were even shortened by taking Avastin (para. 5). b) Barbara Moss received Avastin treated along with chemotherapy to treat her cancer in 2006 and was still alive in when Goldacre’s (2010) article was written (para. 6). Her story was unlike most patients, since the length of the average patient’s life only increased from 19.9 months to 21.3 months (para. 5). Since Moss’s story is unlike the majority of the sample size, it was an unfair representation for the average Avastin user. Journalist’s and media caught onto Moss’s story and it eventually caught the attention of politicians (para. 9). Moss’s unrepresentative anecdote led the Conservative government to invest enough money in Avastin to assist 2381 patients in living around 6 more weeks, then the money was lost (para.
3). Anecdotes are not a reliable source of evidence because the variables are not controlled (para. 8). Mankind also has a fallible memory and tend to only remember one side of a story when retelling it, making the data biased (para. 19). Anecdotes are however still useful in science because they help bridge the gap between science based medicine and the public (para. 25). Anecdotes are also helpful because they are real life experience, therefore easier for a patient to relate to than some scientific facts (para. …show more content…
5). Some people may benefit more or less from the drug and it was found that some lives were even shortened by taking Avastin (para. 5). b) Barbara Moss received Avastin treated along with chemotherapy to treat her cancer in 2006 and was still alive in when Goldacre’s (2010) article was written (para. 6). Her story was unlike most patients, since the length of the average patient’s life only increased from 19.9 months to 21.3 months (para. 5). Since Moss’s story is unlike the majority of the sample size, it was an unfair representation for the average Avastin user. Journalist’s and media caught onto Moss’s story and it eventually caught the attention of politicians (para. 9). Moss’s unrepresentative anecdote led the Conservative government to invest enough money in Avastin to assist 2381 patients in living around 6 more weeks, then the money was lost (para.