OK, it’s late, I just cleaned up the kitchen, and I turned to The New York Times for a little relaxation reading. And it wasn’t relaxing.
Turning to Science Times, I saw this: Nicholas Bakalar is reporting on a study that found “a 28 percent greater risk for birth defects in babies conceived with fertility treatment.”
Why wasn’t this on page one, you ask, for the benefit of Times readers who are considering fertility treatment? That’s a huge increase.
Or maybe it isn’t.
How big is a 28 percent increase? If the risk in people who didn’t have fertility treatment is large, then a 28 percent increase is a large increase. If the percentage of problems in the control group is very, very small, then the 28 percent increase is very, very small.
I searched for “percent” in the Times story, and all I saw were three mentions of relative risk in different circumstances.
If my wife and I were considering fertility treatment, this story would have frightened us—and given us no real information to assess the risks we faced.
Sigh. I should have played Angry Birds.
– Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply