Pointless finding of the day
#2
Scooby Regular
Kill or cure?
Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it.
http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it.
http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kill or cure?
Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it.
http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it.
http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
#5
Scooby Regular
'Exposure to sunlight and pollution, both of which are affected by elevation, had no impact.'
So air has been causing cancer all these years,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Who ever funded that resaerch got value for money,,,,, hahahaha
So air has been causing cancer all these years,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Who ever funded that resaerch got value for money,,,,, hahahaha
#6
To be honest, it's not that pointless. It does tell us that what we need to do is build our castles well above the station in the thin air, and then we'll all be alright. At least with lung cancer, anyway. We can leave our BTL houses on the very ground. May be not all of them. That's because we need our renters alive and kicking to pay us the money, Other thing is, we can charge more rent for our higher up BTL houses, and less of the ones closer to the sea level; on the basis of this amazing finding.
So many commercial ideas a research can trigger, so it's not that pointless for this worldly world.
So many commercial ideas a research can trigger, so it's not that pointless for this worldly world.
Trending Topics
#8
Forget Daily Fail, but about the study, apparently a reviewer also said:
The authors have done this about it:
Another reviewer commented:
The authors answer along the lines of opening more doors to further investigation etc.
Studies go through reviews, but this one has experienced some grilling, by the looks of the reviews which can be found here:
https://peerj.com/articles/705v0.1/rebuttal
..the authors should consider tempering their conclusions on oxygen as an inhaled carcinogen throughout the tone of the article since in this ecological analysis, oxygen was not measured.
Abstract 1)Line 12 'concrete epidemiological support' for oxygen*driven tumorigenesis is an overstatement based solely on the results of this study. We have removed 'concrete' and modified the sentence to specify that oxygen* driven tumorigenesis is a suggestion. We have also tempered the abstract as a whole.
I thought this to be a well-*written paper that examines the influence of a novel risk factor on the incidence of lung cancer. Though well written the study design (cross-*sectional), despite their assertions to the contrary, is not well suited to investigating the possible role of elevation as an etiological factor for lung cancer. The methods do not adequately describe the types of data used in the analyses including where the data are drawn from, nor the other variables that were incorporated into the analyses (smoking, radon, etc). I feel strongly that this paper should be rejected. This type of study design should not be applied to attempt to make a determination about causality for a novel risk factor.
Studies go through reviews, but this one has experienced some grilling, by the looks of the reviews which can be found here:
https://peerj.com/articles/705v0.1/rebuttal
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sam Witwicky
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
17
13 November 2015 10:49 AM