stefd·6 anni fa·discussThis is assuming this 0.62% actually shows a TRUE effect.If it is noise/invalid/a mistake, it means nothing; the actual effect might actually be a DECREASE of CVD as far as we know.And it is important to also look at all cause mortality; such studies have often shown a decrease in CVD but the same final number of deaths...
stefd·6 anni fa·discuss> They use statistical methods to eliminate the confounding variables.Some of those anyway. You can only account for confounders that you know about a priori.And given they used Food Frequency Questionnaires, it's mostly wasted efforts imho.
stefd·7 anni fa·discussWondering if this might explain similar spying around the Canadian parliament...https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-csis-cell-surveillance...
If it is noise/invalid/a mistake, it means nothing; the actual effect might actually be a DECREASE of CVD as far as we know.
And it is important to also look at all cause mortality; such studies have often shown a decrease in CVD but the same final number of deaths...