You're listening to Plenary Session.

This week on Plenary Session, I have a couple things for you.

I have an interview with Dr. Allen Panel, and he's going to take us through a single clinical trial that has been interpreted in two ways.

One, a frequentist way, and two,

a Bayesian way. So you can compare and contrast the two methods. And hopefully we're going to have

a little discussion that pushes back on, I think, a lot of the rhetoric in this space and tries

to make it very practical. So I hope you stick around for that, and I hope you find it interesting.

But first, a plug. If you like this episode and you like this podcast, I need you to do three things.

One, go to Patreon.com and back this podcast.

Backing an artist you support on Patreon.com is a great way to keep something going.

Next, go to the iTunes store and don't just give us

five stars. Write a review. Tell us what you like about the podcast and what you don't like.

A written review goes a long way. Third, recommend Plenary Session to a friend. If you have a friend,

a colleague, someone you think is going to like this podcast, give them a recommendation.

We can use it on plenary session.

Now, what can plenary session do for you?

Well, we can answer your questions.

Tweet to us at plenary underscore session or send us an email at plenary session podcast at gmail.com.

We like listener comments and questions and we're happy to talk about them on the next episode.

First, I got busy this week, so I don't have time to talk about many topics, but there was one topic that's been lingering that I'm supposed to talk about in the monologue, and I figured, now's your shot.

You're going to hear about it right now.

And that topic is my feelings on medical writers for pivotal randomized control trials that are often published in top-tier

...