Oh look, lots of people are Wrong On The Internet today 1. This study was observational 2. The absolute risk difference (WHICH THEY REPORT) was tiny 3. The "organic" group were healthier in lots of wayspic.twitter.com/Cz6oq6p6uR
Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Oh look, lots of people are Wrong On The Internet today 1. This study was observational 2. The absolute risk difference (WHICH THEY REPORT) was tiny 3. The "organic" group were healthier in lots of wayspic.twitter.com/Cz6oq6p6uR
What did the scientists do? They asked French adults about what they ate, classified them into groups according to organic food consumption, and then compared these groups risk of cancerpic.twitter.com/j5u328Dodd
In observational studies, it's always hard to draw causal conclusions, because it's possible that something external to the study caused the results
I will say, this study did the best job I have yet seen of controlling for confounders Still there are several that I can immediately see might be an issue (i.e. ethnicity)pic.twitter.com/w0IEgSm0db
The main results are interesting. There was a significant (p<0.001) trend towards organic food being protective at the highest levels of intake However, it's worth noting that the only real difference was between people with the highest and lowest intakespic.twitter.com/JROFoGCp7S
Their "organic food score" was based on the responses to whether people ate 16 types of organic food There is a significant issue with bias herepic.twitter.com/hobNrXKgDh
The issue is that most of these foods are "healthy" options. What this means is that only people who ALREADY EAT the healthy choices are going to eat the organic version
To their credit, the authors did try to control for this in the analysis, but it's still something that is likely to influence their results
also to their credit: CNN seems to overstate the results much more than the authors
This is true, this was one of the few papers I've seen that actually reported AR front and centre That being said, their conclusion isn't greatpic.twitter.com/3v6DYzx8R6
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.