3 ms·
> very rare Can you more specifically characterize what you mean by that and what your references are? Because you're taking a statistical correlation and a h
by swatcoder 4y ago
> very rare
Can you more specifically characterize what you mean by that and what your references are?
Because you're taking a statistical correlation and a hypothesized mechanism and turning it into logical entailment. It's hard to believe that even a extremely high correlation is anywhere near 100% but I would love to see real data saying otherwise.
- Etheryte 4y agoFor whatever reason you seem to be building a lot of strawmen here. No one prior to you was talking about 100%. Similarly for shifting the onus, you can pick up most any study on obesity and inflammation. Not liking medical facts does not make them go away.
- pessimizer 4y agoThis is not the way to react when asked for evidence of your claim. Instead of talking about 100%, subtract "very rare" from 100%, and supply evidence for that. It's difficult not to like "medical facts" when none have been offered.
- swatcoder 4y agoSorry. Maybe I lost sight of the context of your original reply. I think I took it to mean you saying the study hadn't meaningfully narrowed down mortality risk to less noisy factors than obesity, when I see now that you may have just been helping the prior commenter see that obesity itself is still correlated with mortality through these. Probably because I can't even grok how they got to that idea. :)