3 ms·
The technique that the researches performed is really suspect, however simply saying that they ran 100 tests neglects the fact the the only statistically signif
by placeybordeaux 9y ago
The technique that the researches performed is really suspect, however simply saying that they ran 100 tests neglects the fact the the only statistically significant results were found in the same grouping (artificially sweetened drinks & stroke).
Questioning the research is great, and pointing out that they used a scatter gun approach is totally valid, but I feel like the author lost a lot of position when they said:
"There’s only one small snag in this story; it isn’t true.
Diet drinks aren’t that bad for you at all."
That's completely unsubstantiated. You've pointed out some potential problems, but not brought it home.
- hueving 9y agoThe onus for evidence is on people making the claim that diet drinks are bad for you. Until there is some proof of that, it's safe to say that there is no evidence that diet drinks cause bad effects.
- placeybordeaux 9y agoThe claim that diet drinks aren't bad for you w.r.t. stroke appears to be as unproved as the claim that diet drinks are bad for you w.r.t. stroke. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.