OK, since you asked...
I attached hierarchy of studies below.
Case studies and reports are of the lowest scientific value. I'm not trying to be too techincal or be a pain in the butt, but I am a physician, read peer reviewed articles on a regular basis, and they are of the least scientific value. Controlled trials and systemic reviews are of much higher standard, and what scientific and medical decisions would be based on.
I don't think I missed the point on the third article. Correlation does not equal causation, no matter if the scale is on the level of a few or a few thousand. Does not matter for a number of reasons. A simple explanation of confounding factors as such: smokers tend to drink more coffee than non-smokers. Smokers also get lung cancer at higher rates than non-smokers. Isolating two variables may make it seem like coffee drinkers have a high incidence of lung cancer, but that is not the cause for obvious reasons.
Tons of things are published on NCBI/NIH. Simply being published or recognized on this website does not mean it is of the highest standard of study, though much more credible than blogs or news stories I will agree. And while I tend to lean conservative and appreciate the frequency of updates on the Daily Mail... really... Fox News UK.
|
(
In response to this post by Flanker)
Posted: 06/16/2021 at 9:00PM