I actually see a scenario that explains the web mistake. Maybe the information manager asked if they made an effort to include lymphoma patients, and they were told "no." Someone could easily take this to mean that no lymphoma patients were in the study. I've seen this kind of thing happen
As for what I believe, any time I see a conflict, I experience doubt. All I can do after that is weigh things. In my opinion, the bigger weight is in favor of this being a web site error. That doesn't mean I'm right. But that is where the weight is coming down for me.
Well, we just disagree on this. I think purposely excluding people with lymphoma would be a curve ball. It also repeats the problem created by the CDC in the 1980s when they excluded people with lymphoma, people with punctuate lesions, etc. -- and when they were all through, all they had left is fatigue.
As for what I believe, any time I see a conflict, I experience doubt. All I can do after that is weigh things. In my opinion, the bigger weight is in favor of this being a web site error. That doesn't mean I'm right. But that is where the weight is coming down for me.
Well, we just disagree on this. I think purposely excluding people with lymphoma would be a curve ball. It also repeats the problem created by the CDC in the 1980s when they excluded people with lymphoma, people with punctuate lesions, etc. -- and when they were all through, all they had left is fatigue.