Epidemiology can only give associations which is why we still aren't sure whether smoking causes cancer or if asbestos is bad for your healthhttps://twitter.com/lowcarbGP/status/1171398253834883073 …
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Fair point but if we use the sieve of the Bradford Hill criteria Out of 100 headlines how many would be left I wonder ? Epidemiology merely suggests a hypothesis that requires checking Though important Its a long time now since epidemiology suggested cigs and asbestos
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @lowcarbGP
I'd disagree with that. Epidemiology can be complex to relate to causation, but that is not the same as never speaking to cause at all. And I'd argue that describing epidemiology as only nutritional epi is a bit like calling general practice nothing but vaccinations
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Again fair point but I was alluding specifically to the use of these studies by the press
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lowcarbGP
But surely that's not a phenomenon limited to epidemiology? Bit unfair to characterize an entire discipline by the misrepresentations in the tabloids
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
I think it’s the press & their use of epidemiology studies I’m worried about I’m not sure this is the best way to portray the associations the studies suggest As the general public read it as ‘eating eggs causes cancer’ In Today’s Times there were I think three separate examples
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
We can certainly agree that misrepresentations in the media of epidemiological research are an issue. It's what my blog and podcast are about mostly
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.