Real Study Results Are Sometimes Hard To Find
The real study results are sometimes hidden or not even included in the article itself.
Workers Compensation statistics can be used to make an invalid point by massaging the data to make sure the data fits the assertion. Overall, misleading statistics are becoming more popular. Writing an article that does not actually agree with the study takes being misleading to a whole new level.
One of the more recent articles that over-embellishes the study results is between cancer and red meat consumption. In fact, there were many articles that left out the fact that there was an association between red meat and early death. An association is not the same as conclusive evidence or a correlation.
The Guardian newspaper out of the United Kingdom actually included the whole article. One of the most stark statements in the complete article on the study is:
This US study looked at associations between high intakes of red meat and risk of mortality, finding a positive association between the two. However, the study was observational, not controlled, and so cannot be used to determine cause and effect.
The Guardian article was actually a correction of an even more boastful but untrue statement. The original stated that an extra serving of red meat raised mortality rate by a fifth without specifying frequency of consumption.
The study should have made a correlation, not an association. Correlations are much more accurate than an association. In other words, there s really no direct correlation between eating red meat and cancer. Most often, a correlation between two variables of more than 80% is seen as being a strong correlation.
The bottom line is there may be a correlation between red meat and stomach cancer, but this study does not address the matter with validity.
©J&L Risk Management Inc Copyright Notice