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"
-
-
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 -
Replying to @TuckerGoodrich @drvyom and
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
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @TuckerGoodrich @drvyom and
Lol, I'm not the one throwing out an entire field of research because a single study has conclusions I don't like Especially when I agree with most of the conclusions except this particular one!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Tucker Goodrich Retweeted Tucker Goodrich
You're assuming. Not a wise thing to do. I don't like it because it fails to replicate mechanistically.https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/862122662671396872?s=19 …
Tucker Goodrich added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TuckerGoodrich @drvyom and
I'm assuming nothing. If you agree that smoking is unhealthy and seatbelts are good, you are fine with epidemiology and its methods You just don't like this study
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You're assuming. You are wrong. Liking a good study doesn't mean you like crappy ones. This fails the most basic test, they didn't eat a physiological amount of food. Hence the data is garbage. You refuse to address that, hence you're a troll.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The study participants had low, but within normal (16-1700cal/day) calorie consumption There are many plausible reasons why people enrolled in a study of atherosclerosis might self-report low levels of calorie intake (I.e. diets) Your argument is bad and you should feel bad
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.