Oftentimes, people will say correlation does not imply causation, and this is mathematically true (imply means something different in regular parlance, and correlation can very well imply causation in that usage).
That being said, this is probably a case of putting the cart before the horse.
That claim you’ve just made is completely inconsistent with evidence showing much higher side-effect rates for mRNA over traditional formulations.
Moderna has something like an 80% incidence of fever after the second shot. That incidence of side-effect is unheard of, but in the opposite direction you claimed.
Building a non-trivial website in React with halfway decent design practices is 100000x easier than doing so in raw html/css/jQuery (for argument, the vanilla API back in the day was impossible to use).
It is scientifically inaccurate to believe otherwise.
This isn’t a pedantic point: the mind/body distinction is pseudoscience that used to be believed widely in scientific circles. This readjustment hasn’t really reached common practice yet.
Unpopular opinion: Firefox is allowing itself to be phased out, and contributing to a less free internet, with their business moves. It was hugely upsetting when they axed their dev team mid-pandemic.
I should note that, on iOS, it seems that Safari with a content blocker outperforms the brave skin by a little, which outperforms the Firefox skin by a lot, which outperforms the chrome skin by a lot.
Yeah, we'd need more data. Because PD is such a low-incidence disease generally, any kind of uptick, even in the pre-60 cohort, would push the dial substantially. Are pre-60 cases, which I just found out trivially are at 4%, increasing substantially? Is 4% inclusive of a much older dataset? I'd venture that the answer is yes, but I have no idea.
Errr... I was more implying that ADD/ADHD medications are in very common usage, making it a notable data point. Perhaps I should have make that explicit.
To me, it seems like a really bad sign if something that is supposed to solve a problem is “hard to explain”, almost like it doesn’t actually solve any problem and just ropes you in with familiarity.
My assessment is based on the fact that when you design something, you generally have to be able to explain its value, with little exception.
Will this ever end?