[R] Is R good for not-professional-statistician, un-mathematical clinical researchers?

[Tomas Aragon]

--- Patrick Burns <pburns at pburns.seanet.com> wrote:

> I definitely agree that focussing on what R does better than
> other options is the right approach.  One thing that Tomas
> does not mention is graphics.  Two possible selling points along
> this line are:
> 
> *)  R is good for understanding your data with graphics.
> *)  R is good for producing graphics for publication.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of something my wife says: classes
> are for learning what people don't want to do -- if someone is
> happy to do something, they don't need a class to force them to
> do it.
> 
> 
> Patrick Burns
> 
> Burns Statistics
> patrick at burns-stat.com
> +44 (0)20 8525 0696
> http://www.burns-stat.com
> (home of S Poetry and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User")
> 
Thanks! I agree. I have a web page demonstrating plotting West Nile
virus infections in California at
http://www.medepi.net/data/wnv/index.html

Tomas

=====
Tomas Aragon, MD, DrPH, Director
Center for Infectious Disease Preparedness
UC Berkeley School of Public Health
1918 University Ave., 4th Fl., MC-7350
Berkeley, CA 94720-7350
http://www.idready.org