Yeah, also wondering if there are other correlations they didn't consider. That's the problem with these articles---all the evidence points to one answer, but is that causation or correlation?
> Yeah, also wondering if there are other correlations they didn't consider. That's the problem with these articles---all the evidence points to one answer, but is that causation or correlation?
My stats professor refused to read any pop-sci articles of this kind. His thesis was that bad statistics permeates the "lower sciences" (his words, not mine) and that just devolves into gibberish when it hits the mainstream.
You didn't actually read the article did you? They weren't talking just about retrospective studies, seeing who gets cancer and whether they took vitamins or not. The article talked about multiple randomized double blind placebo trials.
If you get a bunch of random people, give some these high doses of vitamins and give some a placebo, the ones getting the vitamins did worse.
My stats professor refused to read any pop-sci articles of this kind. His thesis was that bad statistics permeates the "lower sciences" (his words, not mine) and that just devolves into gibberish when it hits the mainstream.