[VeritatisSplendor]

I'm sorry, but I was making a technical criticism because you misused a technical term. You said

For statistical significance an increased increased risk (a/k/a relative risk) needs to be over 200% and preferably over 300%.

There is no relationship between your numbers of 200% and 300% and the concept of "statistical significance" which has a specific technical meaning.

[Gabz]

Then tell me at what percentage an increased risk reaches statistical significance in epidemiology.

I’m not looking to argue with you - I truly am interested in knowing