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
-
-
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 …
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
Something I missed earlier - it's also worth noting that in most of the interesting subgroups the association totally disappearedpic.twitter.com/Iv2pvCDg2u
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
Also worth noting that the results are probably not generalizable, considering that this sample was heavily weighted towards highly-educated French women
Show this thread
End of conversation
New 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.