Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The discussions reflect strong agreement, with posts emphasizing the consistency of the meta-analysis findings about smoking and lung cancer, using words like 'robust' and 'strong association.' The tone is analytical and cites specific research, demonstrating deep engagement and recognition of the review's impact, despite some disagreements over methodological details and interpretation of statistical significance.
Most discussions acknowledge the strong link between smoking and lung cancer, emphasizing the robustness of the meta-analysis findings.
Posts display high interest by referencing specific studies, data, and methodological details, showing engagement with the topic.
The discussions involve detailed arguments about study designs, causality, and statistical validity, indicating active engagement.
Participants recognize the significance of systematic reviews in shaping understanding of smoking-related cancer risks, though some debates suggest varying interpretations.
@Pl4ntbased According to @realDaveFeldman 's logic- does that mean he thinks the existance of some studies that do not show a significant association of Lung Ca with smoking therefore means that there is no causal relationship? https://t.co/OWzB4dThYJ https://t.co/T5WEMuAnBj
@Gearoidmuar @ScepticalDoctor Imagine if one were to cherrypick Daveys' study from the 1930s to claim that its odd that smoking appeared not to have a significant effect on lung cancer. That would obviously be a nonsensical argument given the results of other studies. https://t.co/PpS60aEB5T https://t.co/OhDLOpuLfh
@DrMohammadFaro4 پھر وہی بات ۔ میں نے لٹریچر مانگا ہے۔ ذاتی راۓ نہیں میں systematic review with meta analysis شئیر کر رہا ہوں۔ اگر سمجھ آ جاۓ تو ٹھیک ہے ورنہ پلیز اپنی ذاتی راۓ جو سائینس کا نام نہ دیں۔ شکریہ https://t.co/myDJmoKgE9
https://t.co/9EfbDiGmjw https://t.co/VLsfVkH52j
@gjbangar @kmpClimate @JaggerMickOZ @badmoonrising11 @StormSignalSA @PolAnimalAus @RoyPentland @Elizabe90736128 @jamieswilson @KCTaz @MLBinWA @EddyKurrents @miked194765 @priscian @seancunnion @HughAbercrombi3 @ag4slip @novakglobal @riktheozfrog @EngineerEarth @RegimeChangeBC @NotLineker @doctorjackpine @ejwwest @SylviaD32911201 @FraserMacLeod5 @craigthomler @Tokyo_Tom @ClimatismBlog @RJinBaltimore @JdavisWx @sueytonius @brandonrgates @JWSpry @Conserv00301750 @lyndoes @txtrue @munungus @caerbannog666 @maralago_ @msroberts0619 @PoeBrianL @flyonthewall182 @BradSchrag @Tangomitteckel @realiwasframed @JamesDe34061167 @Schmoop0521 @try2golf @Pandeism Re: "No one uses 2 sigma as a valid statistical result." You're either willfully ignorant or dishonest. Either way, it's quite telling that you resorted to such a blatantly false claim to justify your willful evasion of evidence. https://t.co/5Z
@jinnieakgay @Mighty_Lich @milleniumgray Мета-анализ о курении и риске рака легких: https://t.co/ZkaLhnad2o То же, но по раку груди: https://t.co/8qxdjmEOFf Курение и рак полости рта: https://t.co/HdVC18a5kD Везде значительное увеличение рисков. Гуглится на раз-два. Не транслируйте опасные заблуждения
The global aging population presents a substantial market opportunity for the biotech industry, especially in longevity pharmacology. Recent research indicates that aging can be slowed in animals, paving the way for…
This video examines the recent research linking red and processed meat consumption to increased cancer risk, highlighting potential flaws and discussing the significance of diet in cancer prevention.
RT @DrGillespie_GP: @Pl4ntbased According to @realDaveFeldman 's logic- does that mean he thinks the existance of some studies that do no…
RT @DrGillespie_GP: @Pl4ntbased According to @realDaveFeldman 's logic- does that mean he thinks the existance of some studies that do no…
RT @DrGillespie_GP: @Pl4ntbased According to @realDaveFeldman 's logic- does that mean he thinks the existance of some studies that do no…
@Pl4ntbased According to @realDaveFeldman 's logic- does that mean he thinks the existance of some studies that do not show a significant association of Lung Ca with smoking therefore means that there is no causal relationship? https://t.co/OWzB4dThYJ https://t.co/T5WEMuAnBj
@upRootNutrition @_eleanorina @dylanarmbruste3 Or even worse, they’re unadjusted case-control studies…I have this meta in my cloud drive that’s mostly CC studies with a few poorly-adjusted cohort studies, yet it’s probably among the best evidence we have https://t.co/emSFU6G2KQ https://t.co/L755KKnjTn
@tommyspianocor1 @saraheeberry The smoking example does speak for itself. When you look at meta analyses, for example this one, they say “the association of lung cancer with smoking is strong”. So, by your logic the causality isn’t proven, yes? https://t.co/EmypGroW5m
@JulieRei @BobWhencer Put the following in Google. Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer Peter N Lee et al. BMC Cancer. 2012
@JulieRei @BobWhencer Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer Peter N Lee et al. BMC Cancer. 2012.
RT @oldpakistani310: @DrMohammadFaro4 پھر وہی بات ۔ میں نے لٹریچر مانگا ہے۔ ذاتی راۓ نہیں میں systematic review with meta analysis شئیر کر…
RT @oldpakistani310: @DrMohammadFaro4 پھر وہی بات ۔ میں نے لٹریچر مانگا ہے۔ ذاتی راۓ نہیں میں systematic review with meta analysis شئیر کر…
RT @oldpakistani310: @DrMohammadFaro4 پھر وہی بات ۔ میں نے لٹریچر مانگا ہے۔ ذاتی راۓ نہیں میں systematic review with meta analysis شئیر کر…
@DrMohammadFaro4 پھر وہی بات ۔ میں نے لٹریچر مانگا ہے۔ ذاتی راۓ نہیں میں systematic review with meta analysis شئیر کر رہا ہوں۔ اگر سمجھ آ جاۓ تو ٹھیک ہے ورنہ پلیز اپنی ذاتی راۓ جو سائینس کا نام نہ دیں۔ شکریہ https://t.co/myDJmoKgE9
@jinnieakgay @Mighty_Lich @milleniumgray Мета-анализ о курении и риске рака легких: https://t.co/ZkaLhnad2o То же, но по раку груди: https://t.co/8qxdjmEOFf Курение и рак полости рта: https://t.co/HdVC18a5kD Везде значительное увеличение рисков. Гуглится на раз-два. Не транслируйте опасные заблуждения
@Kaden_JRodgers @Aristos_Revenge @LetDaSinkIn That’s the point of meta analyses & systematic reviews. Any 1 paper can be fabricated, but for this systematic review to be a con, it would require a majority of the authors of the 287 included papers (over decades, in multiple countries) to be in on it. https://t.co/wijwZG6p7Q
https://t.co/9EfbDiGmjw https://t.co/VLsfVkH52j
@vegansince96 @robthomas1377 @nutrition_facts Ok I'll bite. Show me anything close to this meta analysis on smoking and cancer with causal inference between meat or fish and cancer. https://t.co/FFFfrlWcEJ
RT @JohnG_UK: @Gearoidmuar @ScepticalDoctor Imagine if one were to cherrypick Daveys' study from the 1930s to claim that its odd that smoki…
RT @JohnG_UK: @Gearoidmuar @ScepticalDoctor Imagine if one were to cherrypick Daveys' study from the 1930s to claim that its odd that smoki…
@Gearoidmuar @ScepticalDoctor Imagine if one were to cherrypick Daveys' study from the 1930s to claim that its odd that smoking appeared not to have a significant effect on lung cancer. That would obviously be a nonsensical argument given the results of other studies. https://t.co/PpS60aEB5T https://t.co/OhDLOpuLfh
@KlausKblog den bedste tilgængelige evidens. https://t.co/NhcFmAQmqx https://t.co/ld7KrPSmLy https://t.co/yPwSnWalRx Og selvfølgelig også masser af dyreforsøg med kontrolgrupper, der underbygger den i forvejen meget stærke tilgængelige evidens om årsagssammenhæng. https://t.co/z8ymEaIYOS
@thalesnemo @OlivePufa @LDLSkeptic @ethanjweiss @ZKForTre @deirdre_tobias @realDaveFeldman Those appear to be odds ratios from case-control studies, not relative risk ratios. In the aggregate, the relative risk of lung cancer from smoking is 5.5 in the prospective data. https://t.co/39eUjSllO7
@The_Nutrivore @DiscoStew66 Apparently the "Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer" you favored didn't address the relevant question of what's happening *this* century.
@pjungar @DiscoStew66 The aggregated relative risk of lung cancer from smoking is 5.5, brah. https://t.co/WyX9eoR0hr https://t.co/JWcZOulAtR
RT @The_Nutrivore: @ketofan1000 https://t.co/39eUjS3Kpx
RT @The_Nutrivore: @ketofan1000 https://t.co/39eUjS3Kpx
@PeterThinggaard @SaselineS @KVarming Lung cancer: https://t.co/ZUDM1MMlWv
Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer ... https://t.co/TW2OKR1xjT
@drdevireddy @Sixkadaanhigh @PNASNews Too many crayon colors. RR of 1-2 is often considered irrelevant. Anything with CI crossing 1 is irrelevant. I do love nuts. In contrast, smoking has RR for lung cancer of 4-100. https://t.co/BGpRkcAReK https://t.co/UhQYekvRez
Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer ... https://t.co/TW2OKR1xjT
@gjbangar Re: "You wouldn’t be able to spread BS about mixing datasets if 2 sigma was acceptable"
@gjbangar @kmpClimate @JaggerMickOZ @badmoonrising11 @StormSignalSA @PolAnimalAus @RoyPentland @Elizabe90736128 @jamieswilson @KCTaz @MLBinWA @EddyKurrents @miked194765 @priscian @seancunnion @HughAbercrombi3 @ag4slip @novakglobal @riktheozfrog @EngineerEarth @RegimeChangeBC @NotLineker @doctorjackpine @ejwwest @SylviaD32911201 @FraserMacLeod5 @craigthomler @Tokyo_Tom @ClimatismBlog @RJinBaltimore @JdavisWx @sueytonius @brandonrgates @JWSpry @Conserv00301750 @lyndoes @txtrue @munungus @caerbannog666 @maralago_ @msroberts0619 @PoeBrianL @flyonthewall182 @BradSchrag @Tangomitteckel @realiwasframed @JamesDe34061167 @Schmoop0521 @try2golf @Pandeism Re: "No one uses 2 sigma as a valid statistical result." You're either willfully ignorant or dishonest. Either way, it's quite telling that you resorted to such a blatantly false claim to justify your willful evasion of evidence. https://t.co/5Z
JG
چا
M
AS
А
RL
S
V
AL
MN
S
BW
PD
SU
C
TL
AR
G
JK
N
PP
BT
KK
FM
MA