I’d start with asking questions that a. matter and b. have some degree of ability to implement and impact the people who would benefit most.https://twitter.com/Alan_Watson_/status/1223224456677666817 …
-
Show this thread
-
Ps. It’s not easy to knock. It takes a lot of time and effort to constantly pick apart studies that are (most likely) done for CVs and for publishers to drive traffic. All under the remit of “evidence-based”. As Altman said. Less research, better research, for the right reasons
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @dnunan79
It isn't challenging to churn out this sort of attack though, is it? And you picked up on this thread. You don't even need to read the paper (though if GidMK had done so then he would have known 1) they didn't just "ask people what they eat (once)" & 2) it was a 15 year study)pic.twitter.com/oGPax75GWO
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alan_Watson_
I imagine after doing like over 100 deep dives into these types of studies
@GidMK defaults to this stance as he knows it’s probably about right 95/100 (P = 0.05). These studies produce associations mixed up of exposure effect, confounding, bias & “interpret w caution” And I do1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dnunan79 @Alan_Watson_
Eh, I did read the study. Exposure assessment was conducted using a single FFQ conducted 5 years after the initiation of the original longitudinal cohort. They then linked that to routine medical data for mortality outcomes 10-15 years later
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
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.