Every time I go read studies, these useless “mores” really are meaningless, to the point of being deceptive.
Tell you what, go do a deep dive on Blood Pressure medication efficacy - turns out they don’t really do what they claim. And then dig into the safety - also turns out they cause as much harm as good.
Example: it takes medicating 33 people for 5 years to prevent a single cardiac event. That’s sixty thousand doses of a medication that carries a non-trivial risk of kidney failure (about 0.8 kidney failures in that same time frame).
Well put.
I like how so many studies (or summaries of studies) use these ambiguous “more”.
Every time I go look at details, that “more” nearly always turns out to be meaningless.
Yeah, fuck these researchers. We should stop studying things cause you don’t like reading headlines.
Just pointless papers saying we should be cautious of things. Let’s ignore all that and put up all the lights and point them wherever we want.
Cities don’t have plants anyway, so what’s the harm!?!
That’s not what I said at all.
Every time I go read studies, these useless “mores” really are meaningless, to the point of being deceptive.
Tell you what, go do a deep dive on Blood Pressure medication efficacy - turns out they don’t really do what they claim. And then dig into the safety - also turns out they cause as much harm as good.
Example: it takes medicating 33 people for 5 years to prevent a single cardiac event. That’s sixty thousand doses of a medication that carries a non-trivial risk of kidney failure (about 0.8 kidney failures in that same time frame).
Not exactly a convincing result.