Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Whenifhow; null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; 2ndDivisionVet; azishot; ...

p


2 posted on 02/15/2019 9:07:00 AM PST by bitt (forget the electric chair..we're gonna need electric bleachers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bitt

This is a junk study that makes the basic logical fallacy of correlation is not necessarily causation.

The study is a meta study of other studies of approximately 12,000 European women 50 to 72 years old who were asked questions and followed for 22 years. The findings are minor correlations of morbiditywithin overall morbidity without adjusting for the fact that in this group many became more obese after having been obese for much of their lives and were entering the period where adult onset diseases such as stroke, heart attacks, peripheral artery disease, and diabetes, all of which have a much higher morbidity rate than the observed diet drink rate, are diagnosed or observed.

Obese persons are also the population most likely to adopt drinking “diet” or lower calorically sweetened foods and drinks in an effort to lose the weight that is their primary health risk which has the highest combined morbidity rate when the morbidity of all diseases associated with obesity, those exact diseases listed in the previous paragraph among others. The so-called observed morbidity associated with diet drinks, much less the named “Coke” in many hyped headlines, is a mirage of poor statistical analysis or funding bias. The researchers are seeing what they want to see.


57 posted on 02/15/2019 11:13:05 AM PST by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplaphobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: bitt
Already posted under a different publication. This is nothing more than grant chasing.

My response in the previous thread: A retrospective, “diet equivalent” study without controlled confounding factors is a hypothesis at best when based on associative findings. File it away as junk science. This is only a basis for “funding” further research, not for medical recommendations.

An epidemiology retrospective study is NOT science. Retrospective studies are at the most valuable for forming a hypothesis.
64 posted on 02/15/2019 12:49:39 PM PST by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson