Who is pushing this stuffhttps://twitter.com/cnni/status/1072348024293208066 …
A tiny effect at most: breast cancer in 2.2% of women who'd had a kid, versus 1.9% in women who hadn't. 'This data should not be used to influence decisions about childbearing' But then why publish anti-natalist clickbait scare-stories?
-
-
...when coupled with synthetic estrogen. What a way to pick a headline...SMH
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do these people even do stats on the data? How big must that sample size have been to get a significant difference between 1.9% and 2.2%?
-
OK, they looked at 9 million people and nearly 19,000 got breast cancer. That's a good sample size. Still very small effect.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Men be like: who could have foretold that pregnancies are associated with various health risks? Quick, let’s dismiss the evidence!
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.