Paul Saladino· MD
Observational studies confounded by unhealthy used bias.
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
Observational studies confounded by unhealthy used bias.
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.
this is the reason that nearly everyone believes that red meat is bad for us and is based entirely on observational epidemiology that could easily be confounded by healthy user bias and unhealthy user bias in this case we're mostly talking about unhealthy user bias because they are associating meat consumption with negative outcomes