-
-
For example, we know that ethnicity and income can change someone's risk of death, but the study didn't control for these things at all Could be that people who drink more soft drinks are just less well off than those who don't!
Show this thread -
Another hilarious thing about the study was that for some diseases, soft drinks were REALLY protective at low doses For example, drinking an extra Diet Coke a week REDUCED your risk of breast cancer by 21%
Show this thread -
Realistically, it's more likely that there are some significant confounders still remaining so we just don't know whether soft drinks = death/cancer from this study
Show this thread -
Also, for the epi nerds, the study authors attribute the reduction in risk at low doses to reverse confounding, but I find this argument unconvincing
Show this thread -
Firstly, they did a specific sensitivity analysis to try and control for reverse causality which didn't change the results, so their own results don't agree with this interpretation
Show this thread -
Secondly, this is absolutely a non-differential effect, so you'd expect it to apply equally across all groups of the study rather than only reducing the observed risk in one particular group of people
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.