@mihotep What an odd, incorrect thing to say. Statistical significance isn't the final say, but still the best place to start.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
@GidMK reputable epidemiologists never take seriously any OR < 3.0 https://books.google.com/books?id=bNPtR6O01r4C&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=odds+ratios+less+than+3.0+meaningless&source=bl&ots=qdNA6o_nor&sig=mURq7zeqMSvyIghJebYzHBYQhsM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNsIH1kuLJAhVY4GMKHWdpBhUQ6AEIJTAC …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
@GidMK this, like all#smoking epi studies suffers from the same fundamental flaw: http://antithrlies.com/2015/09/27/sunday-science-lesson-how-they-estimate-deaths-from-smoking-etc/ … It simply isn't credible2 replies 0 retweets 0 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.