Criticisms of Swedish mammography trials were wrong

How Wenzel and cassie were wrong.

We argue using experimental data that contact lines and not contact areas are important in determining wettability. Three types of two-component surfaces were prepared that contain "spots" in a surrounding field: a hydrophilic spot in a hydrophobic field, a rough spot in a smooth field, and a smooth spot in a rough field. Water contact angles were measured within the spots and with the spot con...

Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

BACKGROUND There has been much debate about the value of screening mammography. Here we update the overview of the Swedish randomised controlled trials on mammography screening up to and including 1996. The Kopparberg part of the Two-County trial was not available for the overview, but the continuation of the Malmö trial (MMST II) has been added. The article also contains basic data from the tr...

Why Fodor and Pylyshyn Were Wrong: The Simplest Refutation

This paper offers both a theoretical and an experimental perspective on the relationship between connectionist and Classical (symbol-processing) models. Firstly, a serious flaw in Fodor and Pylyshyn’s argument against connectionism is pointed out: if, in fact, a part of their argument is valid, then it establishes a conclusion quite different from that which they intend, a conclusion which is d...

Criticisms of African trials fail to withstand scrutiny: male circumcision does prevent HIV infection.

A recent article in the JLM (Boyle GJ and Hill G, "Sub-Saharan African Randomised Clinical Trials into Male Circumcision and HIV Transmission: Methodological, Ethical and Legal Concerns" (2011) 19 JLM 316) criticises the large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that scientists, clinicians and policy-makers worldwide have concluded provide compelling evidence in support of voluntary medical mal...

Diagnosis of Helminth Infections in Cattle: Were We Wrong in the Past?