Everyone knows that meta analysis is the gold standard and CCSA's study is the EXACT OPPOSITE. Why limit yourself to a single study per outcome? Do they not know how to statistically combine the results of multiple studies? I wish I could believe they are that incompetent, unfortunately that is the best case scenario. I fear the truth is much more sinister.
I’m in Australia, Canada’s twin sister, after watching RFK jr talk about food colouring from petroleum, I checked out TGA standards. Similarly illogical, similarly to US … strangely lax with recognised toxins in our food. Strange times we live in.
Everyone knows that meta analysis is the gold standard and CCSA's study is the EXACT OPPOSITE. Why limit yourself to a single study per outcome? Do they not know how to statistically combine the results of multiple studies? I wish I could believe they are that incompetent, unfortunately that is the best case scenario. I fear the truth is much more sinister.
The CCSA analysis was clearly not set up to accommodate for a wide variety of inputs.
I’m in Australia, Canada’s twin sister, after watching RFK jr talk about food colouring from petroleum, I checked out TGA standards. Similarly illogical, similarly to US … strangely lax with recognised toxins in our food. Strange times we live in.
Australia actually revised its alcohol guidance before Canada did. I did not yet have the time to compare both approaches in detail, but questions may arise there as well. Meanwhile, I did write about us wild horses being under attack in Australia too: https://www.wildhorsewisdom.xyz/p/roam-free-or-die?r=31a4ti&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web