World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
There are many problems with this post and this study:
This study did not conclude that there are no health benefits from taking multivitamins, that's a false equivalence made by the poster.
This study has no parameters for the quality or types of vitamins taken other than "multivitamin"
This study exclusively reports the correlation between mortality and multivitamins, which is an inconsequential and useless statistic without any parameters.
This study does not take into account any variables apart from a lack of long-term health disorders among multivitamin takers.
This is relevant as many people take vitamins specifically to rectify long-term health disorders.
Then again, seeing as how their only metric was mortality and not efficacy on health, that wouldn't have mattered in this study.
This could be one of the explanations for the 4% higher mortality rate in multivitamin takers. I'm sure there are others, since no variables are parameters were taken into account or structured into the study. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2820369
This "study" is the sum function on an Excel sheet that counted the number of deaths connected to the number of people who reported taking multivitamins, which is a useless number without controlled parameters or variables taken into account.
The study means nothing.
Saying that this is a sum function on an Excel spreadsheet is a VAST oversimplification of this study. Stating that they did not take variables and parameters into account means that you did not read the study you linked. This may very well be a poor study, but not for the reasons you stated.
The study begins by adding up how many people self-reported taking multivitamins in some reports, then they added up the dead humans.
Pretty simple.
I thought I said there were no relevant variables and parameters? I'll check.
Yes, I said relevant in point four.
I guess I could have used it in two and three also, although I think it makes sense in context.
I stand by my earlier comment and don't see the need to edit it to add in the word "relevant" to further dunk on an irrelevant paper.
Here: There are no relevant controlling variables or parameters that make this study useful.
It's not even a curio because any number of factors could influence the conclusions of their addition.