4 ms·

There was an independent variable that was controlled as stated in the abstract and I pointed out already: they selected for people that had "abusive" relations

There was an independent variable that was controlled as stated in the abstract and I pointed out already: they selected for people that had "abusive" relationships with cannabis according to whatever standard they chose. They firmly state the presence of a link between heart attacks and cannabis consumption without outlining whether the selected group had any other existing health or genetic issues. Maybe the data didn't contain that information—in which case the data sounds useless for this kind of study. How can you draw a link (read: connection) when there is no causal proof? You can draw a correlation and state that further investigation is needed to draw a link, but they state there is a link. That's why I'm calling it weak.

hirundo 5y ago
For link, read correlation, not connection. They can only show evidence of correlation with this design, not connection. I think you're misunderstanding the nature of an independent variable. To be independent it has to be controlled by the experimenter. If an abusive relationship with cannabis was an independent variable, subjects would have to be assigned an abusive relationship with cannabis, which is obviously not practical. There must be such an intervention. Since they are only selected from the existing population, with no independent intervention, this is a survey, not an experiment. It is the difference between observational and experimental science, and this study is the former.
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  I'm not misunderstanding. The word link literally means a connection or relationship. There is neither of those two things in this data, except that their 1.3% of "abusive" smokers had heart attacks versus 0.5% of non-smokers. You cannot draw a link from that alone, but they are stating there is a link. You can state there is a link between diet and heart disease, because there's a proven causal relationship. Not so in this case. Also, the variable was independent because they study stated that they only included "abusive" smokers, implying they excluded casual or occasional smokers. They split the data on that variable. That's a selection process.
  - hirundo 5y ago
    You are describing epidemiology, which is not an experimental science, because it does not have the luxury of independent variables. And you are correct that it is weaker at establishing links than a controlled experiment. So it's mostly a resort for when an RCT is impractical or as a way to select which RCTs to pursue.
    - 52-6F-62 5y ago
      I didn't say it was experimental science. I said their use of the word link implies a causal relationship because that is precisely what the word link means. If they are not describing a link, and instead are describing a correlation then they should do so. Calling their findings a "link" is much more final and implies causation. It's not an arcane definition I'm pointing to here—it's the only definition for the word. There is no link. There is an apparent correlation based on their filtered dataset. Epidemiology isn't meant to create problems, it's meant to resolve them. They are borderline fabricating a problem with their misleading study. Maybe next time they should indicate a "possible link" since that is all they actually have. When studies make hard-nosed, misleading conclusions about health subjects that are presently on the political fence I get suspicious.

hirundo 5y ago

For link, read correlation, not connection. They can only show evidence of correlation with this design, not connection. I think you're misunderstanding the nature of an independent variable. To be independent it has to be controlled by the experimenter. If an abusive relationship with cannabis was an independent variable, subjects would have to be assigned an abusive relationship with cannabis, which is obviously not practical. There must be such an intervention. Since they are only selected from the existing population, with no independent intervention, this is a survey, not an experiment. It is the difference between observational and experimental science, and this study is the former.

52-6F-62 5y ago
I'm not misunderstanding. The word link literally means a connection or relationship. There is neither of those two things in this data, except that their 1.3% of "abusive" smokers had heart attacks versus 0.5% of non-smokers. You cannot draw a link from that alone, but they are stating there is a link. You can state there is a link between diet and heart disease, because there's a proven causal relationship. Not so in this case. Also, the variable was independent because they study stated that they only included "abusive" smokers, implying they excluded casual or occasional smokers. They split the data on that variable. That's a selection process.
- hirundo 5y ago
  You are describing epidemiology, which is not an experimental science, because it does not have the luxury of independent variables. And you are correct that it is weaker at establishing links than a controlled experiment. So it's mostly a resort for when an RCT is impractical or as a way to select which RCTs to pursue.
  - 52-6F-62 5y ago
    I didn't say it was experimental science. I said their use of the word link implies a causal relationship because that is precisely what the word link means. If they are not describing a link, and instead are describing a correlation then they should do so. Calling their findings a "link" is much more final and implies causation. It's not an arcane definition I'm pointing to here—it's the only definition for the word. There is no link. There is an apparent correlation based on their filtered dataset. Epidemiology isn't meant to create problems, it's meant to resolve them. They are borderline fabricating a problem with their misleading study. Maybe next time they should indicate a "possible link" since that is all they actually have. When studies make hard-nosed, misleading conclusions about health subjects that are presently on the political fence I get suspicious.