(01-04-2022, 12:25 AM)Dom Wrote: I'd hate to be you.
Why? All I'm saying is to follow the research, rather than what people tell you about the research. Those things aren't always the same.
Consider Ancel Keys's Seven Countries Study, which "established" a clear connection between dietary fats and heart disease. Turns out he studied 22 countries, and picked seven that clearly showed that connection. You could choose others which show the reverse. If you plot out all 22 you see no connection. But, the fear of fats was established, and led to over consumption of carbohydrates and the epidemics of obesity and diabetes we have today. This shit really happened. He did the study on a government grant, and the government and professional associations loved his findings, because it gave a simple "answer." I forget the exact quote but I'm sure you've heard that for every complex problem there's a solution that's simple, plausible, and wrong.
The research was correct. Well, not really, as it didn't separate trans fats from other fats. But still, the full 22 country figures showing no correlation was correct. It was the reporting of the information (cherry picking 7 countries) that was incorrect. But, it got Keys on the cover of Time magazine, so I guess it's OK.
Then look into statins, and you'll be reminded of the quote lies, damned lies, and statistics. If a control group has 3% mortality and the statin group has 2% mortality, they don't report that it's a 1% risk reduction (the absolute risk reduction), they report that it's a 33% risk reduction (the relative risk reduction). It's disgusting, and has led to an over-medicated society with deteriorating health. And that's for heart mortality. All-cause mortality (if it's even reported) generally shows no difference. Some people with existing heart disease might get enough benefit (absolute risk reduction might be several percent), but it's doing nothing for primary prevention aside from making big pharma rich.
Again, the research is correct. But if you tell someone that a drug will give them a 1% risk reduction over 5 years, they're much less likely to take it (i.e. BUY it) than if you tell them it gives a 20 or 30 or 40 percent risk reduction. Lies. Damned lies. Statistics.
