Except these were all taken at baseline. Moreover, none of this would explain the primary outcome of interest, ACM
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @bokkiedog and
Sorry, for some reason I didn't see this reply until now. The criticism of the statistical analysis stands even though the association with diabetes was at baseline. It's not as though everyone started their diets from a common washout diet or something.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @bokkiedog and
No, that's the point of correcting for confounders! To put it another way, correcting for baseline results reduces the likelihood that people's characteristics at the start of the study caused the results
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @KetoCarnivore and
They corrected for baseline & 3rd visit and forecasted the rest from there, excluding all data from people who died, got metabolic disease during the data collection. That's cheating & not adjusting for confounders
@GidMK1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MigraineBook @GidMK and
I could have misunderstood, but I read it as they didn't change the quartiles for those diagnosed (also questionable), not that they excluded them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @GidMK and
"We did not update carbohydrate exposures of participants that developed heart disease, diabetes, and stroke before Visit 3, to reduce potential confounding from changes in diet that could arise from the diagnosis of these diseases." They ignored the data
@KetoCarnivore2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MigraineBook @GidMK and
I took "not update the carbohydrate exposures" to mean that they kept those people in and kept them in the quartiles they were in at baseline. So if they lowered their carb intake because they got a diabetes diagnosis, they didn't move to the lower quartile.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @MigraineBook and
Either way they're ignoring data!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @GidMK and
Yes, and not just ignoring data but THE very data they were looking for. There was so much manipulation in this paper that it is borderline criminal &
@TheLancetPH better pay attention! They messed up by accepting $5000 for this paper. A scam.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MigraineBook @KetoCarnivore and
Lol. That's neither a valid criticism of the study nor "borderline criminal" what a hilarious accusation
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I mean, how dare the study authors follow standard intention-to-treat methodology to avoid biasing the study by exaggerating the negative effect low-carb diets had and making them look far worse than they should they should be put in prison!
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.