The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
so epidemiology makes up for its biggest limitation which is it can never compensate for inherent biases by saying we can do infinite duration if we want like we could we could survey people over the course of their lives and we can have the biggest sample size possible
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.
so so epidemiology makes up for its biggest limitation which is it can never compensate for inherent biases by saying we can do infinite duration if we want like we could we could survey people over the course of their lives and we can have the biggest sample size possible because this is relatively cheap the cost of actually doing an experiment where you have tens of thousands of people is prohibitive
this is the majority of What's Done in Western medicine unfortunately because they're easier and cheaper to do but these type of studies are simply surveys
so epidemiology makes up for its biggest limitation which is it can never compensate for inherent biases by saying we can do infinite duration if we want like we could we could survey people over the course of their lives and we can have the biggest sample size possible because this is relatively cheap the cost of actually doing an experiment where you have tens of thousands of people is prohibitive