Good explainer on the methods used by the authors of the latest #redmeat studies.
And wow - how often will you hear a health journalist saying these words. From one GRADE to another, welcome to the club.
Your comments echo mine:
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-papers-looking-at-red-and-processed-meat-consumption-and-health/ …https://twitter.com/juliaoftoronto/status/1179068211595284480 …
-
-
Replying to @dnunan79
Interestingly, I think this is one time when the authors may have abused risk using absolute figures. They consistently use the term "very small" to describe the benefits based on ARR, but in population terms some of the risk reductions could be quite meaningful
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
David Nunan Retweeted David Nunan
Not sure about abused, perhaps emphasised enthusiastically (certainly more so than previous). The population vs individual is interesting and got me thinking already:https://twitter.com/dnunan79/status/1179005604679028737?s=21 …
David Nunan added,
David Nunan @dnunan79Replying to @GilesYeo @BBCFergusWalsh @SkyNewsAgee. The population level potential (again if you believe the numbers generated in the studies) is large. But how is any of this communicated? How often do you hear: ‘Reduce YOUR x,y,z. It is unlikely to benefit you, but it MAy benefit others like you?’ /11 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yeh abused maybe too harsh, but I think their framing was my biggest issue with the research itself
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.


was just the perfect opportunity.