4 ms·
Primary source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2822%2900311-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01
by jimrandomh 4y ago
Primary source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2822%2900311-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... .
- jimrandomh 4y agoThe whole thing reads like lawyers talking about bugs in a spreasheet, without being willing to show the spreadsheet itself. And everything in the spreadsheet itself is survey data, not the results of experiments, which puts it on shaky footing to begin with. My own perspective is that this entire branch of research--trying to figure out risk factors for nutrition based on non-intervential studies--is a failed paradigm which cannot reasonably be expected to produce true conclusions, has a long history of producing false conclusions that were later overturned. It's basically pseudoscience.