I am again confused. Obviously we care about the outcomes, the point is that grade C evidence can be applied to a diverse range of settings because it is an assessment of evidential backing
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @MacroFour and
You and me both buddy! So if an intervention isn’t achieving its objective (eg ADG, Grade C) “just keep going bc Grade C is a good as we are ever going to get”?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeDietitians @MacroFour and
Grade C? So you have a large, well-conducted systematic review of similarly rigorous observational trials demonstrating that populations with ADG are worse off than populations without? I'd be fascinated to see it. Seriously, sounds like an amazing study
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @MacroFour and
Gid, I'm trying to clarify your statement. Observational studies aren't really a "trial"as there is no intervention such as an RCT. Nations who have national food guidelines (mostly OECD nations) were ahead in food-related chronic disease.pic.twitter.com/WOLBnbHwD0
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeDietitians @GidMK and
ADG have not met their objective - not delivered the "outcomes" expected. Public health messaging on ADG haven't either (see evaluations Go for 2&5 inter alia). I've suggested "maybe Grade C evidence isn't enough to tell people what to eat" as ONE possible contributory factorpic.twitter.com/97WbJ8R9IT
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeDietitians @GidMK and
You: Grade C is what we've always done Me: Grade C for ADG isn't achieving its objective You: Grade C is enough ...regardless of outcomes Me: Outcomes is the reason we intervene You: of course we care about outcomes Me: why keep going w intervention that isn't meeting objective
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeDietitians @GidMK and
You: show me a SR that ADG are not meeting their objective Australia has one of the highest rates of food-related chronic disease across the OECD despite yrs of protracted investment in pub health - there's a mismatch between the intention of public health, and the outcome.pic.twitter.com/tjUiq4pOKh
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeDietitians @MacroFour and
You made an evidential claim (ADG not working, Grade C) I am asking for that evidence If you wish to retract said claim, just let me know. If you wish, you can look up what Grade C evidence entails, or read my tweets above
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @MacroFour and
Look around buddy, look around the shelves of the supermarket, look at the packages of health claims, look at our food-health statistics....the Public Health System we've created has led us to "this" - even if "not intended" this is what the outcome is.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeDietitians @GidMK and
You are writing negatively about programs that do show promise, and praising programs that haven't achieved their objective...and putting up your arguments as scientific
....and doing so in a way that "science is infallible" and "science rules are there to be followed end of"2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Ok, this is getting extremely annoying. I have never said that science is infallible, I have been quite clear on the importance of interpretation, and attributing things to me that I do not argue and would not say is really a bit insulting
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @MacroFour and
I'm trying not to Gid, but you are very difficult to get a straight answer from.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.