I took heat
Well, I meant it then, and I mean it now.
And here is the TWEETORIAL on this paper/ nutritional epi
From the paper:
For common exposures/ outcomes (e.g. aspirin, chocolate, tea, beer) & (cancer, death), there are thousands of interested researchers w retrospective data & stats software
Basically, showing, by covariate selection (picking what to adjust for), you can get huge variations in effect & sometimes, effects in either direction (+ or -)
Most associations were null however
This finding is of course, implausible aka stupid
BIG DATA, right?
(last part coming)
Wine essentially adjusts for unmeasured socioeconomics here
Was any of this helpful