Pretty sure that’s not red meat...
"Smokers risk of contracting lung cancer is between 9 & 25 times greater than non-smokers. Unless relative risks are greater than five, epidemiological studies typically provide low-quality evidence. Meat was based on relative risks of 1.17 to 1.18."https://www.ft.com/content/42259e20-92b5-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af …
-
-
-
LOL... Great picture of hogs though.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well considering they have just come out with figures yesterday showing one in 6 lung cancers are in NEVER smokers then even that is nothing to go on.
-
Yes, good point. You need massive relative risks (~50) to have good predictive capacity at the individual level. Say a smoker walks into a doctor's office... So when people say LDL is a strong predictor of heart disease, that's a garbage statement.
-
I had complete physical about 10 years ago. They said 'ah you are good for your age you can tell you don't smoke'. I have done off and on since 7 years 17 habitual lol
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This article was published in 2015. And has been rightly ignored as it contains science, math and logic and makes for boring uninteresting headlines
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
And when a study shows totally inverse results, this whole concept should be put to rest. "The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082/ …
Thanks. 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.