And this is where things get really, REALLY weird Compare this sentence in the results to the graph. Notice anything strange here?pic.twitter.com/gPsfY11Oa6
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
Imagine asking someone who is currently going through an inpatient admission for acute psychosis when they remember getting a dog as a child, and using that as your exposure variable You see the problem
So this study didn't even really measure whether people who were diagnosed with schizophrenia were more likely to get dogs as children It measured who was more likely to REMEMBER getting a dog as a childpic.twitter.com/9wIOr6YxN0
And using the time that they remembered having a dog as the time-point for a longitudinal analysis is...problematic For one thing, you don't have accurate pet death data. You don't actually know how long these people were exposed to pets!
I'm going to stop here, because while there's more there really isn't much point in going through it allpic.twitter.com/9ZPrh2WLfs
The fact that the analyses were the wrong way around, the exposure was a bit meaningless, and that the stats were probably misreported is probably enough And yet, the study was published, and got into the NYT *sigh*
TL:DR - dogs don't prevent schizophrenia - schizophrenia may prevent dogs - even then, probably not - this study is a mess
If you want more info, @statsepi and @ADAlthousePhD explain really well in this thread:https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1220015078726098944?s=20 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.