Lol you're the fourth person to tag me in it. Paper isn't up online last I checked so no word from me yet, but it sounds extremely dodgy at face value
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @nevertoocurious
Health Nerd Retweeted RelativelyRisky
Health Nerd added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @nevertoocurious
I have the paper here if you'd like to check it out (about to read it myself).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tribalscientist @nevertoocurious
Yes please! gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Ok, so thoughts: - no good correction for SES (issue) - very vague correlations here. No biological gradient, various 'significant' interactions but...meh - even in this high-risk cohort, absolute risk increase for the HIGHEST group was 0.05%
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Also, exposure was ascertained from a SINGLE QUESTIONNAIRE given once at the start of the study Hair dyeing behaviour is almost certain to vary, making this a pretty pointless study imo
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Oh, also, the p-value for any hair dye was 0.05, because honestly that relationship was anything but certain. I find even the analyses pretty unconvincing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'll probably write something about this, it's a pretty weak correlation that's been blown totally out of proportion
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Oh, also, they put it down to exposure to things like formaldehyde, but that's total nonsense. I'd be surprised if hair dye comes in the top 10 environmental exposures for formaldehyde (you don't get dyed that often!) never mind enough to be causing breast cancer
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.