Is that right? It looks like the differences are >twice the standard error in many of those comparisons (see the PVT percentile estimate); i imagine it depends on the multiple comparison adjustment that you would use.
Breastfeeding not causal for much of anything as far as we can tell. But wait, didn't second study find it for IQ?? Not really. They tested 15 things and only 1 had a p < .10, which is the one they emphasized. Fake finding. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361236/ … https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17020911 pic.twitter.com/eB0Hhmc4Tv
-
-
-
The ones that are close to 1 are ORs.
-
Yeah, I understand now. It looks like a number of the between family estimates are significant and possibly substantial in some cases, but (with the possible and untrustworthy exception of the vocabulary score difference) the within-family estimates are not.
-
Yes. This is typical Amir type work showing familial confounding.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Lowers women's chance of breast cancer and helps women lose pregnancy weight. Also good for the baby as it provides passive immunity to many pathogens....which is very important in regions without clean water
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23317179 There is a lot published on the immune functions of breast milk. Here is just one. See additional references withinhttps://academic.oup.com/advances/article/6/3/267/4568648 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@xTrisarahtops
@EvangelineKipp2@EarthFascist - 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.