4 ms·

70% higher risk is meaningless if you don't give the absolute risk. Common issue with this kind of reporting... EDIT: my bad, they did talk about the absolute

70% higher risk is meaningless if you don't give the absolute risk. Common issue with this kind of reporting... EDIT: my bad, they did talk about the absolute risk later on. Should have been the first thing they mention, though, to avoid looking sensationalist. > The researchers calculated the rate of Parkinson’s disease in the veterans and compared it with the rate in more than 72,000 veterans who lived at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, a similar training ground in California where there were not high levels of TCE. By 2021, 279 of the Camp Lejeune veterans, or 0.33%, had developed Parkinson’s versus 151 of those at Camp Pendleton, or 0.21%.

VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
> Should have been the first thing they mention, though, to avoid looking sensationalist. There isn't a whole lot they can do if you don't actually read the article. I always try to read the article before I pass judgement on whether it's sensationalized or not.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
q1w2 3y ago
Is that the only data sets they looked at? Comparing only two locations means that there could be any number of site differences that account for the difference in the rate of Parkinson’s disease, other than the studied chemical.
- rippercushions 3y ago
  Pendleton seems to be a reasonable control, since the reported prevalence of 0.21% in patients under 60 matches other large data sets like the UK (0.25%). https://www.parkinsons.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-01/Prevalence%20%20Incidence%20Report%20Latest_Public_2.pdf https://www.parkinsons.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-01/Pr...
  - q1w2 3y ago
    Sure, but it's like having ONE control patient and one Test patient.