Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
View Entire Thread
Re: Fooled by randomness: red meat and cancer

As JEB would say: another classic of the genre, a data dredge with a Trojan number of 53,396 cancer cases out of 500,000 studied, and the highest risk they can claim is 60%. They studied the data looking for those diseases that showed higher than "normal" counts, while rejecting those that were "normal" or below. No word about those diseases for which red meat offers protection (those with risks less than "normal".)

Re: Re: Fooled by randomness: red meat and cancer

I have probably asked this question before, but are there any of these studies that have meaningful results? I imagine the clinical trials for drugs might be relevant, but has a single environmental study every produced something useful?

There's a project. Create a site devoted to relevant epidemiological research.

It would have one page.

Sorry, at this time there are no Epidemiological Results that are relevant!

have a great day!