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 I told you the centenarians of the in Haines data are all two-pack-a-day smokers would that make sense to you no no it wouldn't make any sense to you right there you go I think you didn't carry the four somewhere a day or something right but but I have to use that analogy because that's the only way I can get it across the people who think of things just strictly an LDL if high LDL means higher risk of death this population shouldn't exist
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.
simply stated just like with bradford hill to meet consistency you shouldn't be able to find any population for which say smoking causes longevity for the same reason you shouldn't be able to see any population for which high alveol causes longevity if you believe it is a net risk outcome