The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
if smoking is causally related to lung cancer then theoretically my correlations should get stronger and stronger the more cigarettes you smoked if that's not the case it becomes very hard to make the case that smoking is causing lung cancer
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
various factors defined by a a statistician named Austin Bradford Hill speak to the strength of the association and the the the probability or likelihood that that Association is causal
he talked about the dose effect even within the association like for example all of this was sort of figured out during the kind of smoking chera epidemics when people were trying to understand causality and then you'd say well if smoking is causally related to lung cancer then theoretically my correlations should get stronger and stronger the more cigarettes you smoked if that's not the case it becomes very hard to make the case that smoking is causing lung cancer