Quote:
Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey
Guess you don't know much about scientific method. I said the sample size looks small, and it is if you take in to consideration that there are about 50,000 elk and a half million deer in the entire province. But if you look at the local population in the area sampled around the positive farms, it is a fairly representative sample for a localized area. And that is what F&W wanted, a representative sample of the local area around the infected farms to see if the prion had spread to the wild or came from the wild. It didn't.
Sorry can't reasonably debate or have a discussion with someone that sees conspiracies everywhere. And all data can be skewed. Wearing a tinfoil hat won't help you.
|
Donkey
One more for sake of arguement your arguement holds no ground , a small high risk area probably similar to the sampling around a cwd pos elk farm as you are suggesting was probably a small high risk area, 486 and 320 tested seems reasonable to believe it was a similar circumstance, what have we learned from these neg tests ? You need numbers when your dealing with low percentages, thousands not hundreds
n late March and early April of 2005 a similar cull took place when a total of 486 deer were culled from what was termed a ?small high-risk area? east of Chauvin. Despite culling these animals, no positive cases of CWD were found.
http://www.meridianbooster.com/2006/...uvin-deer-cull
From this cull in an known small high risk area of 486 animals tested negative.
So if we would have based our results on this low deer submission it's obvious the results are skewed.... agreed?