Agreed Richard Ward. This is not good. Most of the care data users would be supremely uninterested in getting data sets together to help in evidence based research. So there goes the only ethical reason for sharing it in the first place.
Ummm.. sorry, left out the White Lightning incidence of blindness, silly me. It was 4.5 ( loss of sight in one eye gave the surprise non-integer result)
Critically important point made here Dr Brunet, and well made too. To imagine a less useful exercise in reporting and subsequent number crunching may be difficult to find. Target = 50% of entirely fictitious number = duhhh!!! Holy smoking biros. I think I will write myself a prescription for a large G&T or maybe a neat Grey Goose. Clinical trial note: - A Grey Goose versus White Lightning double blinded trial using a cohort of >1000 geriatric candidates produced an unequivocal result of zero resultant blindness in Grey Goose consumption as opposed to White Lightning ( statistical confidence > 99%)