You must log in or # to comment.
Headlines need to not mislead, yes. But people also need to read beyond headlines.
they used to teach that in schools. probably not anymore.
Shiiit for a second I thought that said “Implied Caucasian”
All these comments are great, but the real mystery is:
Why did someone overlay a different font on top of the original graphic rather than just make a whole new graphic? Like, the work is exactly the same, and the rest of us can view sane font placement.
Original probably said ‘correlation’ when it should be causation. The correlation is established in the headline.
Apparently someone took that personally.
That was exactly what I did lmfao. It was technically incorrect, so I made it technically correct lol.
Implied Causation #2: health insurance has a bearing on longer life
Implied Causation #3: Health insurance isn’t effective at insuring health, thus the implied causation needs to be explicitly noted
Health insurance doesn’t equal Healthcare
Jr researchers are using AI to comb through cancer research datanases and every time they come back with data linking racial minority to worse outcomes or faster tumor progression, and proposals to review genetic differences.
Never does it link that non rich people don’t go to a doctor unless it’s very bad, and so present at later stages of cancer, and can’t afford the better personalized treatments.
The entire world of dog cancer research has recently collapsed not because there aren’t researchers invested in the work or that there aren’t clinical trials available, it’s that dog owners can’t afford to even travel to clinical sites for treatment.
It’s heartbreaking
Never does it link that non rich people don’t go to a doctor unless it’s very bad, and so present at later stages of cancer, and can’t afford the better personalized treatments.
Also…
-
Poor people are more likely to work in dangerous industrial jobs that expose them to carcinogens.
-
Poor people are more likely to work outside, where they’re exposed to high levels of UV, causing skin cancers.
-
Poor people are more likely to live in less desirable places, which may be located closer to industrial sites that spread carcinogenic waste into the air and water.
-
Poor people are more likely to eat highly processed foods that increase cancer risk.
-
Poor people are more likely to be obese, which increases cancer risk.
-
Poor people are more likely to smoke and/or be exposed to second-hand smoke.
-
Poor people are more likely to have high stress levels, which increases cancer risk.
There’s a million different non-genetic reasons why racial minorities (who tend to be poorer) would have higher cancer rates.
-
Most horse people I know (me included) are BROKE because we choose to have horse(s) when we really shouldn’t. Bad financial decisions for sure, but most horse people have a passion for the creatures and don’t let things like finances get in the way.
There have been days where I’ve skipped meals in order to buy my horse her supplements. Not many days, but a couple. My bond with horses is what keeps me going when I’m at my lowest, so I refuse to give them up. My mom and grandma will occasionally sneak me a few bucks to help because they’re almost as invested in my horse as I am.
Here’s the horse tax:
Nice yee yee ass horse you got there
She looks better than she did lol. Spent 2 years rehabbing her. She’s also old as fuck, so she’ll always look a lil yee yee ass
Oh hi Sandy
Also, if you own horses, you’re probably going out to take care of them on a daily basis, which means you get at least a little bit of mild exercise every day. That would help a lot, compared to people who are entirely sedentary.
In the UK where everyone has decent basic health care on average you live 2 years shorter if you own a horse. It’s worse than riding a motorcycle (1 year shorter). It turns out that owning a big animal that will kick you if you look at it funny or throw you off if it gets startled by a packet of crisps in the road isn’t that great for your health.
We need a comprehensive study that compares health outcomes from getting your face kicked in, between the US and the UK.
I always thought horses could murder someone because that’s their idea of a good joke.
I’m not a horse person, but having been around several, my understanding is that horses don’t joke about that sort of thing. They take it very seriously indeed.
That, and, as the previous commenter said, get spooked by a rogue crisp packet, their own shadow, or the fact the sun has come up again.
Heads up that Justin King guy is extremely sus with ties to US intelligence and human trafficking. He made up his whole Beau persona and puts on his accent as an affect. He’s shady as shit.
Kind of like all the sugar substitute correlation “studies” that keep saying sugar substitutes cause the same diseases that being obese cause. Hmmm, I wonder who typically consumes sugar substitutes…
Flip side of the studies that show people that eat almonds as a snack live longer.
Almonds are fucking expensive, yo. If you’re snacking on almonds, you’re doing OK already.
what? they are fairly cheap for a nut. that’s why they are so ubiquitous. walnut, pecan, pistachio, macademia… all more per lb.
most other nuts cost more, excluding peanuts.
almonds are about 5 dollars a lb raw, which is the price of cheap cuts of chicken, which is by far the cheapest meat on the market.
for a nut
Yeah, this isn’t about comparing almonds vs. pistachios. This is about comparing almonds vs. hot cheetos and takis.
Which, granted, are closer in price now, but when that study came out and was all over the news, it was just classism wrapped up as some health news. At the time even jerky was about the same price as almonds, and gas stations wouldn’t ever carry almonds. Sunflower seeds, peanuts, corn nuts, jerky.
ActUalLy: peanuts, although having ‘nuts’ in their name, are botanically speaking legumes from the family fabaceae, like lentils or chickpeas.
I think we should count the costs as including water, low-paid labor, etc. for any product.
Good point, has any good prospective study been done on this? Seems like something that really should be studied with methodology that can prove or disprove causation.
Yes, artificial sweeteners are literally the most studied food in human history. There are a lot of different chemicals involved so I won’t make any sweeping statements, but all of the most popular ones have been proven over and over to be harmless.
But then things get complicated because the sugar lobby will fund a rat study where they inject an absolutely insane amount of sweeteners into their blood and it obviously fucks them up. Then they publish a study about how the sweeteners cause all kinds of ailments. But when you actually look into it (nobody does) you realize they injected the equivalent of drinking 100 Liters of soda per day, which obviously nobody does.
I think more studies are still warranted. I agreed with you before, based on that available data, but later they have found that the bmi of people who use artificial sweeteners is the same as people who don’t.
2 takeaways can be considered here. First, that just keeps their palate attuned to extra sweetness, which if they just took a break for a bit from all sweetened stuff, even fruit might taste amazing again. Second, it’s possible that it directly affects their microphone, perhaps feeding poorer quality microbes which would lead to all kinds of things, perhaps increasing hunger for foods those microbes like, perhaps affecting their mood, etc.
But those really amount to the same thing. If you can cut sugar, and not supplement with other added sugar, you might consume more fruits and get the associated fiber, which is probably a good thing.
Just remember, you’ll always be third to a horse girl after her daddy’s money and her horse.
She’s really good on top, though.
No, she’s not. The horse does most of the work.
Nah. Horse girls have got to learn how to keep up with the rhythm and roll their hips. Sure, the horse does most of the work, but they’re still doing some work … work that’s very applicable to other activities as well.
Tru dat.
I married a horse girl, she rode well
She also hated being a parent and left me and our daughter
To be fair, I’d choose a pile of money and a horse over myself any day so I don’t blame the girl.
And are getting exercise, eating healthy, etc.
You don’t typically have a horse without money.
Typically all horses have no money. What would a horse even do with it anyway. And they don’t even have pockets to put in it.
No pockets, you say?
Tweed on a steed!
saddlebags
Touche
What about a horse with no name?
A horse is a horse is a horse of course, unless it’s a talking horse, of course.
Good for riding through a desert
My wife’s family would be the atypical version. Income wise they were below the poverty limit, but because they farmed a quarter section in N. Alberta they had lots of horses.
horse people love to tell you how they have no money because of their horses though
Everyone that isn’t a tool already realizes the differences between causation and correlation.
Granted those that realize this already are not perhaps even a majority now int eh US.
Many literal scientists assume the correlations they find are causative without much thought. Definitely a pervasive problem the assumption of correlations as causations.
The real reason though, those scientist trained hacks are signing on to what they are paid to, to design studies to work backwards from poisoning the population is actually totally safe.
But yes.
The other month in our field some random team published a paper where they surveyed people sick with a chronic illness and people who had recovered from that illness. They found the recovered people had better mental health than those who were ill.
The authors in all their wisdom decided that means mental health causes the illness. It apparently didn’t cross their mind that being chronically ill is not fun so you have worse mental health and being recovered is comparatively great so you have better mental health.
Now some right wing chuds are citing this silly study to try and paint the illness as fake.
The amount of shit science being published today is appalling. It’s always been a significant issue, but it has gotten worse with time. I have read articles published in the top journals who’s methodology should have made a 1st year graduate student cringe. I have no idea how they made it past peer review and were published.
I really agree. The decline in methodology and proper hedging (not overstating) is really appalling. It feels like science publishing has become about marketing your paper not trying to uncover the “truth”…
I have no idea how they made it past peer review and were published.
The authors aren’t the only ones getting paid off.
I suspect, at some point, it will slip and become a major scandal that reviewers at major scientific journals have been accepting “gifts” from interested parties to help ensure that specific articles get approved and published.
Maybe. A lot can’t spare the time to review and pretend they did (supposedly).
“Guys! It’s the scientists who are bad!” said the smartest person in the room
A point which he arrived at through correlation, without citing any causation.
Curious.
Gtfo of here, we should all know trade groups hire agencies to construct studies from it’s cool to reach that conclustion.
You are either ignorant and given to trolling people you think (often incorrectly,) have made some offense, or a fucking moron.
Now piss off.
Your argument may be better received with less hostility. People are going to criticise your ideas throughout life, however this reaction could be seen as a distraction to your focus on the subject. Everyone is at dismay at a topic, and many topics have the capability to become heated, yet you will be amongst greater levels of respectability for future interactions if you consider refraining from attacks today (even if you feel as though this is being done to you).
Just trying to help, not scold. There’s always a better way to get your point across without making people dislike your comments, is what I’m essentially trying to get at.First of all, I don’t give a fuck how I’m received, until I am satisfied my comment is in the common good. And I stand by this comment entirely. I am proud of my preceding comment, and if you don’t like it, I don’t care. Not one little bit. Other than caring enough to argue a bit obviously.
lol fair enough, big man.
“Some studies are done with funding contingent on a certain result, therefore all science is junk and science as an institution is untrustworthy”
they will pay for it. every single person who mistakes causation and correlation will die!
Granted those that realize this already are not perhaps even a majority now int eh US.
Yeah, that’s the thing.
There are pockets of people who are clued in and take the time / have the time to process what they read/see & hear. Those people seem to be fewer and harder to find.
I don’t think people are generally just plain dumb (I know unpopular opinion), but I think a good majority of us are in sensory and informational overload and human understanding of the world has likely never been so complex nor moved so quickly.
This is all happening during a modern renaissance period for malicious misrepresentation (i.e. convincing lies). And even if people are too “dumb” to tell truth from lies, they do recognize that the lies are coming in rapid fire and from every direction. Easier just to tune out and not think too much about all that, otherwise it’s depressing.
Don’t forget that older folks are aging into cognitive issues, younger people have only known this as their reality, poor people are struggling to make ends meet with no time to stop and think, and so many of the ones who’ve “made it” are doing their best to keep it all conveniently compartmentalized away and out of sight.
So, yes, sometimes you do have to be direct and spell otherwise obvious things out for people. The struggle is real.
This is a case where it’s obvious there’s no direct causation, but so often it’s not this clear, and even the really smart people sometimes mess that part up – intentionally or otherwise.
Removed by mod
