О «ЛУННОМ» ЦИКЛЕ

[assalam786]

Если вы - мужчина и все же решили читать дальше, продолжайте в свое удовольствие; только если в конце вы скажете: «Да кому это нужно, кроме женщин?», вспомните, что именно об этом вы были предупреждены : )

Comments

[anonymous]

Results
There was a total of 11,399 births. The number of elective cesarean sections was 2,162, 2,513 vaginal deliveries were induced, with 6,724 births remaining.

Of these, 4,373 births were spontaneous vaginal deliveries. There were 1,340 non-elective cesarean sections, 314 vacuum extractions and 197 forceps extractions.

Analysis showed no significant differences in the frequency of births related to the moon phases (Figure 2 and Table I), nor was there any across the moon phases for instrumental births or the necessity to perform an emergency cesarean section (Figure 3).

[assalam786]

I would use the one with a more solid statistical basis, which is this one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3734339/

"We have looked at 5,927,978 French births occurring between the months of January 1968 and the 31st December 1974. Using Fourier's spectral analysis we have been able to show that there are two different rhythms in birth frequencies: --a weekly rhythm characterised by the lowest number of births on a Sunday and the largest number on a Tuesday: --an annual rhythm with the maximum number of births in May and the minimum in September-October. A statistical analysis of the distribution of births in the lunar month shows that more are born between the last quarter and the new moon, and fewer are born in the first quarter of the moon. The differences between the distribution observed during the lunar month and the theoretical distribution are statistically significant".

5.9 million is greater than 11 thousand, is it not?

[anonymous]

I got it, in the article which denies the correlation between birth rate and moon cycle there was a graph, and looking at this graph I could see a little rise in birth rate in the time of lunar period which you have described. It is hard to say percent wise. Maybe 5%, maybe 20%. But it was kind of a little spike on the graph. So now there are two groups of people - scientists, and one set of data. One group interpreted same data as a no correlation, other as a correlation. Funny.

[assalam786]

It is not just a matter of interpretation, but also a matter of statistical significance.

The abstract of the second article states:
"The differences between the distribution observed during the lunar month and the theoretical distribution are statistically significant".

Looking at the definition of statistical significance, we find: "Statistical significance refers to the claim that a result from data generated by testing or experimentation is not likely to occur randomly or by chance but is instead likely to be attributable to a specific cause".

Sometimes 5% represent a statistical significance, sometimes 20%, depending on probabilities assigned.

[anonymous]

I would have to agree on that. Thank you! 😊