Where do they get the values to use to adjust the raw data?
-
-
Replying to @TuckerGoodrich @drvyom and
A variety of places, it's all in the methods section
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, and there seems to be an unfounded confidence in that data, and no, it's typically not listed in methods. They just mention that ut has been done. No raw data, no data for adjustments.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TuckerGoodrich @drvyom and
They briefly go over the data collection and reference their earlier publications where the data collection is more broadly described
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So no raw data.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TuckerGoodrich @drvyom and
Indeed. I imagine you could get it if you applied to the study authors and had a valid reason, but it wasn't published publicly Standard practice with potentially identifiable patient data such as this. It's usually an ethical requirement, in fact
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Raw data can anonymized easily enough, and still allow statistical validation. You still haven't addressed the starvation-level calorie intake, which invalidates the entire enterprise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TuckerGoodrich @GidMK and
They also excluded the people who immediately suffered poor outcomes. "We did not update carbohydrate exposures of participants that developed heart disease, diabetes, and stroke before Visit 3"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TuckerGoodrich @drvyom and
I have indeed addressed your misconceptions, and you are simply describing standard epidemiological practice. This is extremely tiresome
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Tucker Goodrich Retweeted Tucker Goodrich
Yes, hence why people who are critical thinkers conclude the field produces worthless outcomes. Thanks for confirming.https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/993174967264169984?s=19 …
Tucker Goodrich added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Lol. As I said, you are shaking your fist at the sky because you dislike the study outcomes. I imagine you'd have none of these issues if the study had agreed with your preconceived beliefs
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @TuckerGoodrich and
For example, I imagine you think smoking is bad for you and that seatbelts work?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Quit the the simple-minded comparisons. One good epidemiological study doesn't mean they're all good. And certainly doesn't excuse garbage like this, that you nevertheless defend.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.