Finally, almost at the end of this dreary, dreadful Epidemiology showoff rant

Just a few odds and ends, mostly central to the more clinical parts of the field. As with my profile, and rants, it all serves to send over 99% of CS ladies running away. Wise for them, and perfect for me. The few that aren't really scammers from Nigeria, and actually read profiles, and think they fit the bill, AND desire to discuss it, here, before moving onto private mail,---well, the plan is working as planned. As is the plan to get certain rubes booted off CS.
But first, while speaking of ladies, we at the Vierk Institute are pleased to announce the winner of the first student award for exceptional behaviors, in and out of the lecture halls and laboratories, in selfless service to learning about public health. Miss Jappy Goldstein, MD, PhD, studying for her masters degree in public health, is our hottie winner. An intrepid leader in where to sit and how to dress, while batting eyes down here in front at your emeritus lecturer, not to mention her interest in private lessons during orofice hours of the same,---well, she was talented in every possible way. So, the first Honorary Bill and Monica, 60 ring size, Presidente Cigar Award goes to her. As do the highest grades for the course, even before examinations. And she's also accepted an internship as teaching assistant next semester. With such youth, well, it brings tears to these old eyes. Yet, I hate digressing.
Google the terms false positive/negative and positive/negative predictive value, for how Clinical Epid enters into the practice of vaccine development, clinical trials, and for screening. And commonly misunderstood, screening does not mean identification of new cases, but only refers to selecting from defined populations those likely to be found having a given valid final working diagnosis, as with The Trump Derangement and other liberal behavioral syndromes. And screening must be inexpensive, harmless, easy to apply, and valid (as per above terms/concepts). And effective available further treatment/diagnostic measures must exist.
A few words on clinical trials. A hallmark of so called "evidenced based medicine", google the relevant terms of the concept, including,---randomization, double blinding, multiple study arms, power sample sizes, placebo controls, multi study sites, etc. Also, the way study subjects are entered or restricted from an investigation are important, as are proper analytical statistical approaches, data presentations and interpretations of findings.
But often the politics of such research are ignored. From seed money granting, to full funding, to formal study, to publication, and round about again, you won't find much on this, except from the Vierk. A hole separate lecture, but just follow the money. Shameless, political correctness at work. Don't take my words for it. Female breast cancer and HIV-AIDS research funding, versus that for similarly serious problems with straight older white males. But the problem does go both ways.
And consider the often pejorative use of "anecdotal evidence". People forget that "evidenced based " guidance only exist for relatively few clinical problems. Most medical practice emerges from how others did it, often for centuries. As anecdotal as it gets, but usually useful. Both in training and practice. First, do no harm.
Finally, one of my favorite variables emerging from Clinical Epid is the "Number Needed to Treat", the NNT. Buy careful study of diseases and treatments, using much of the above, this most useful parameter guides clinician nurses and physicians on the practicality of effective therapies. The lower the value, the better the medicine. If it's necessary to treat some 1,000 patients, to prevent a few cases or to lead to cures for just a few, well, it's not as good as getting such results by only treating a few.
Enough boredum for now. But we do so love to show off and to annoy, so more CS mini books may be lurking close by. Tootles, all. And Jappy, check how your maties are seated.