It has been proven that if you drink green tea every morning rather than coffee there is a 99% chance you will be miserable ...
These studies are often statistical correlations, not rigorous cause and effect analyses. It's like saying cancer is highly correlated with age, so don't get old!
Another place where the phrase 'correlation is not causation' would be appropriate, yet oddly media don't cite it in this context and are all too keen to cite it in contexts where it doesn't apply.
I am also stunned by what some deem 'strong evidence' in this context. The relationship between cause and effect should at least be tested on the same subject in a dense cadence. That should yield a group of persons in a contingency table ('consumes substance or not' vs. 'diagnosed with specific condition X') and the consumption should be accurately reported over time, along with exposure to other probable causes for the same disease. In that sense, the Nurses Health Study (mentioned in the article on red meat) is a better basis, but it is still very flawed. Just drawing statistics on a nationwide population level doesn't tell us anything.
We shall leave adults the option to make adult choices and steer far away from allowing "health authorities" to make decisions for all of us. Recent times have shown over again that their judgment is not always the best.
It has been proven that if you drink green tea every morning rather than coffee there is a 99% chance you will be miserable ...
These studies are often statistical correlations, not rigorous cause and effect analyses. It's like saying cancer is highly correlated with age, so don't get old!
Everything in moderation ....
Another place where the phrase 'correlation is not causation' would be appropriate, yet oddly media don't cite it in this context and are all too keen to cite it in contexts where it doesn't apply.
I am also stunned by what some deem 'strong evidence' in this context. The relationship between cause and effect should at least be tested on the same subject in a dense cadence. That should yield a group of persons in a contingency table ('consumes substance or not' vs. 'diagnosed with specific condition X') and the consumption should be accurately reported over time, along with exposure to other probable causes for the same disease. In that sense, the Nurses Health Study (mentioned in the article on red meat) is a better basis, but it is still very flawed. Just drawing statistics on a nationwide population level doesn't tell us anything.
It has been only a few days since the UK's phaseout passed the Houses of Parliament and now we have the Canadian health minister proposing the same:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/canadian-health-minister-eyes-possible-smoking-ban-in-wake-of-proposed-uk-law-6018816
We shall leave adults the option to make adult choices and steer far away from allowing "health authorities" to make decisions for all of us. Recent times have shown over again that their judgment is not always the best.