• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 days ago

    They’re controlling for that…

    The real sticking point is another way to say a rate doubled, is that it increased from 0.0004% rate to 0.0008% rate, is an increase of 0.0004%.

    That’s most likely going on here, and is something we’ve always known.

    It’s not like someone is born destined to experience these conditions, people are just suspectable at various rates, so for some people right on the line, weird shit can tip them over when they wouldn’t have before.

    Do the same test with sugar or caffeine and your likely to get similar results even, but good luck finding control groups that aren’t drastically different in other ways.

    We also can’t control the study the other way, and force kids to smoke weed

    Anyone acting like these types of studies proves anything safe or unsafe, at best doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

    • knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      You can only controll for known previous conditions.

      And genes could be a driving factor.

      The last paragraph in the article seems to indicate that being born into low income families increases psychic health risks.

      Fully agree that studies like these are pretty much useless. They are the reason we get media outlets to proclaim bullshit like “drinking 1 glass of wine everyday is good for your heart”