On 2017-04-23, wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:09:38 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
On 4/22/2017 9:12 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
On 4/21/2017 3:36 PM, You Already Know wrote:

Im tired of my tax money being wasted on junk "science" like this lie
that claims diet soda increases risk of stroke and dementia.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/health...ementia-study/
Because if it was true, then why havent I had strokes and shown signs
of dementia? Hmmm?

Gunner, who scarfs Diet Mt Dew every day.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I fully agree that was voodoo science used. That was medical not science.

Science starts out and see's what happens. They started out to prove a
point.

How do you know this? Did you read the study? I did, and you're full of baloney.

Very interesting. How many died? How many got cancer? How
many smoked ? ........ How many lived next to a Nuke power plant ? How
many lived near a pipeline ? How many drank Booze ? how many smoked pot
and how many ...other drugs.

Instead of pulling answers out of your ass, Martin, you'd do better to read the study first. Then see if you have a disagreement with the methodology, the statistics, or the conclusions:

"After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer???s disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26???6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18???7.07) for Alzheimer???s disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.


We pay for junk studies all of the time.

You tell 'em...

Ed -
The study was for xxxxx. It wasn't a study on the effects or workings
of this additive.
When you start out a research that defines the goal it tends on proving
that and nothing else. We in Physics are taught to roll the dice and
see what happens. They load the dice.

Martin

I can't interpret your first sentence. It was a study that used
Framingham Study data to find some associations between known risk
factors and incidences of stroke and dementia.

This is a straightforward and common type of statistical medical
study. The Framingham Study data is the world's largest database of
risk factors and their correlations with disease. I referred to it
extensively when writing about metabolic syndrome. So does
practically everyone else who works in the field or who reports on
it.

Did you read it? Did you read the abstract? Or did you just read the
CNN news article?

Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/conten...AHA.116.016027

Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to
suggest the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied
straightforward statistical methods to see what the data tell us.

Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract,
and if you don't know how these associations are researched and
measured in medicine, find out before jumping to conclusions.


That abstract speaks for itself. Thanks for posting a link to it.