Oh hey look, lots of people are Wrong On The Internet again No, red wine isn't good for heart failure. The study itself was: 1. Tiny 2. Observational 3. Hopelessly confounded 4. Not generalizablepic.twitter.com/kKrPWzh7ro
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
Seriously, I doubt whether this was sufficiently well-powered to establish a statistical difference once you've split it up into so many categories
You can kind of see this in that they split the drinkers into 4 groups: never, abstainers, 1-7 drinks per week, 7+ drinks per week These are ~really weird~pic.twitter.com/d0yF2oA7Z5
Usually with drinking, you'd divide it into 1 per day (i.e. 7 per week), 2 per day, 3 per day etc This significantly limits the applicability of the findings straight up, because the AVERAGE alcohol consumption in many countries is more than double this 'safe' amount
And the tiny sample size means that their results are only ~barely~ significant, because the difference between moderate and other drinkers is always very small anywaypic.twitter.com/a7eMAqTIeP
Also, it's only when compared to abstinence, which we know is not a good model for behavior
Anyway, there's not a whole lot you can take home from a massively confounded 393-person observational study The headlines are almost certainly nonsense Wine is still not great for people with heart disease as far as we know
Oh, also, the "2-years longer" nonsense that everyone had in their headlines? That was based off the point estimate in differences But the CONFIDENCE INTERVALS INTERSECT (a lot)pic.twitter.com/nYalwtvXP9
That doesn't mean that there's no difference, but it does make the certainty of any specific difference much lower, making the two years total guesswork
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.