Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    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

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    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

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    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

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      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

      1 reply 4 retweets 14 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      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

      1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      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

      1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      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

      1 reply 4 retweets 23 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      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

      2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes
      Show this thread
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      Another big issue is that people who ate more organic food were MUCH healthier on every metric than people who didn't Again, the authors controlled for the factors they know about, but residual confounding is very likely herepic.twitter.com/Ziznlwd8RV

      1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes
      Show this thread
    7. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      And then we come to the absolute risk difference, which as I mentioned was TINYpic.twitter.com/YHtjtCPwU8

      2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes
      Show this thread
    8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      Remember the Daily Mail? Reporting that 86% reduction in "blood cancer risk"? Firstly, they got it wrong. The odds ratio was 0.24, so the reduction was 76% The absolute reduction there was less than 0.1%! (Also for stats-y people, the 95% CI was 0.04-0.66!)pic.twitter.com/ev8zMOYIuH

      1 reply 0 retweets 21 likes
      Show this thread
    9. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      In fact, if you want to look at individual cancers - rather than the trend for all cancer - organic food was NOT associated with MOST cancers (red = associated, green = not)pic.twitter.com/glVLPbJoIM

      1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes
      Show this thread
    10. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      We could just as easily write a story about how organic food does nothing for breast, prostate, colorectal, and skin cancers, but that's a much less interesting headline

      2 replies 6 retweets 19 likes
      Show this thread
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

      So, what to take away from this study?

      3:23 PM - 22 Oct 2018
      • 4 Likes
      • Jarrod McMaugh MPS Simon Martin 💙 Ryou 🦋 Todd Cameron AZ x2 💥💪
      1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          Firstly, there are actually already bigger, arguable better studies on the topic that have found the opposite result!pic.twitter.com/xve7GKuxSi

          1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes
          Show this thread
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          Secondly, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PESTICIDES This study didn't look at pesticides at all. We have no idea if organic consumption equates to reduced pesticide ingestion - especially considering that there is some evidence to suggest the opposite!

          2 replies 1 retweet 14 likes
          Show this thread
        4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          Thirdly, the absolute risk is tiny The "high organic" group ate MORE THAN 20x the organics of the "low organic" group, and they only saw a 0.6% reduction in risk That's a huge expenditure for a minuscule benefit, even if this study is correct

          1 reply 1 retweet 16 likes
          Show this thread
        5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          Finally, there's a good chance that these results are meaningless. The more factors the authors controlled for, the smaller the statistical difference There's a good chance that if you could control for everything, the result would disappear entirely

          1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes
          Show this thread
        6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          This study probably means very little to your life. Eating organic is ~probably~ better for the environment, but that's about it I've written about this beforehttps://medium.com/@gidmk/organic-food-isnt-better-for-your-health-93a35584639d …

          3 replies 1 retweet 14 likes
          Show this thread
        7. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          Also, this isn't a criticism of the study, the actual research was pretty cool. I would say that the authors were a bit optimistic in their conclusion, but otherwise it was interesting epidemiological researchpic.twitter.com/LxIlXpe98s

          2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes
          Show this thread
        8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          Something I missed earlier - it's also worth noting that in most of the interesting subgroups the association totally disappearedpic.twitter.com/Iv2pvCDg2u

          2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes
          Show this thread
        9. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          What this means is that organics are likely only useful in reducing the cancer risk of elderly women, which to me points to the results being likely down to statistical noise

          2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
          Show this thread
        10. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          If the effect disappears when you don't look at a single group of cancers - postmenopausal breast cancer - then it's more than likely it's not there at all

          2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
          Show this thread
        11. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 22 Oct 2018

          Also worth noting that the results are probably not generalizable, considering that this sample was heavily weighted towards highly-educated French women

          2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes
          Show this thread
        12. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info