pull down to refresh
The funny thing is, having interacted with the journalists who write about "science", they are not interested in your caveats about heterogeneity.
They want a simple headline number: thing A caused thing B to increase by X%.
Wine is good for you? Bad for you? Sometimes maybe good in moderation...
There is a fundamental difficulty with nutrition research, which is that you cannot hold everything else equal: i.e. Is that wine in addition to your normal diet or is it crowding out something else? Both are problematic for a researcher.
I meant in respect to SimpleStacker's journos...(Since wine is healthy/not-healthy are some stupid journo headlines I see a lot)
hashtag science...?
(in the "updated" formula, my result differed from the original simple one by less than 1%... oops)
I wonder if @SimpleStacker finds this as amusing as I do.
They replaced an easy to implement heuristic, with a difficult to implement rule that gives basically the same answers and still isn't reliable.