Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | stefd's commentslogin

This 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...


> 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.


Wondering if this might explain similar spying around the Canadian parliament...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-csis-cell-surveillance...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: