There are a lot of new readers, and many may not yet have heard of the epidemiologist fallacy. Few tools have been as productive at generating The Science. You know The Science. The Science is what they insist you must “follow”. The epidemiologist fallacy (EF) is simple to describe: It is when a scientist claims X causes Y, but where he
Just right off the top, before reading this, doesn’t everything kill old people? COVID, COVID vaccines, heart disease, paint fumes, falling down stairs (there’s a study! “Mortality Risk in the Elderly from Falling Down Stairs”). I can see the conclusion: “One level living must be mandated for all those over the age of 65 (and immediately for Joe Biden) in order to ensure elderly citizens do not risk death on staircases.”
LOL. Falls definitely and it doesn't have to be down stairs! Mandating one-level living probably wouldn't have an impact. I'd love to see the mortality rates for 12 months post falls of older people.
There is huge money in making claims that you can somehow reduce human suffering or death by reducing something that has made life tolerable and easier on this silly rock. But one of the most simple models we learn in elementary school is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. My non scientist self has tested this model across all of the systems in my life and it has never failed to be true. If you take away the money that is paid to these people, the things they dream up to claim are killing us will go away. “Everything will kill you, chose something fun.”
I remember reading years ago of a correlation of cancer in proximity to electric transmission lines, then studies that showed the opposite (closer to T lines meant less cancer). With all the proposed alarmist shift from fossil fuels to electrification, building heat pumps and cars, it might be interesting to dust those studies off.
I appreciate you raising this subject. I particularly find studies conducted by epidemiologists in the nutrition field concerning. I have previously mentioned professor Bart Kay, who effectively debunks the misunderstandings that arise from such studies and the people in the media that run with false conclusions from such studies - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPXRNC1ikcs
I don't want to solely target epidemiology for criticism; because I hold two psychology degrees, I must acknowledge that in recent years I have discovered that numerous psych studies, even the ones that are considered fundamental and frequently referred to that I touted for years, do not live up to the claims they presented due the similar reasons that you bring up here.
It is amazing how many "causes" people create for themselves to worry about. I live a few hundred miles south of coal country, so it will probably take awhile for the coal dust to start fighting the 2nd-hand tobacco smoke and micro-plastics that are gradually filling our oceans and all of our lungs. Don't Worry. Be Happy. Life is short enough without wasting our time dwelling on fantasies and imaginary terrors.
What are the "idols" of Gen Z? Does "science" and the religion of global warming have more worshippers than Taylor Swift? The world wonders for a moment and then turns on the television.
I'm starting to think that nearly everything that has words «risk ratio» in it should be treated as suspicious. It's too often a way to hide two poorly estimated probabilities by dividing them one by the other, thus only increasing uncertainty.
On a tangentially related note, that «masks increase the risk of COVID» study that's making rounds today is unfortunately, erm, Not Very Good™, too.
It seems to this non scientist that the word science conflates two different objects of study:inert nature and human nature. The first has many cause and effect claims bc variables can be controlled. The second is very difficult to control for variables bc humans themselves are so variable: genetics, culture, environment, personal choice etc. Hence the substitution for cause and effect of associative studies.
Even more important is the fact that study of humans is frequently political. Which requires accounting for the incentives of the investigators and the application of trade offs. In this case, what are the beneficial effects of coal use.
Gee, where have we seen this before? 🤔 Seems like we had these people promoting “The Science” the past 3-4 years and now look what is coming out. Time to start thinking for ourselves and not relying on Fauci’s “Scientism”.
So lets see if I have this right. Some scientists gathered a few of their favourite models and estimates pertaining to “Mortality risk” from coal dust. They applied rigorous statistical techniques to develop models of those models. From which they derived an estimate of “number of deaths attributable to coal PM2.5” over a period of years. Which they multiplied, (or was it divided?), by the number of "excess deaths" in somewhere, somewhere. And were able to calculate a meaningful (to them) risk profile.
Right!
Minor statistical note: The words “estimate”, or “estimated” occur no fewer than 54 times in the body of the article.
Just right off the top, before reading this, doesn’t everything kill old people? COVID, COVID vaccines, heart disease, paint fumes, falling down stairs (there’s a study! “Mortality Risk in the Elderly from Falling Down Stairs”). I can see the conclusion: “One level living must be mandated for all those over the age of 65 (and immediately for Joe Biden) in order to ensure elderly citizens do not risk death on staircases.”
LOL. Falls definitely and it doesn't have to be down stairs! Mandating one-level living probably wouldn't have an impact. I'd love to see the mortality rates for 12 months post falls of older people.
There is huge money in making claims that you can somehow reduce human suffering or death by reducing something that has made life tolerable and easier on this silly rock. But one of the most simple models we learn in elementary school is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. My non scientist self has tested this model across all of the systems in my life and it has never failed to be true. If you take away the money that is paid to these people, the things they dream up to claim are killing us will go away. “Everything will kill you, chose something fun.”
Suggested edit: "simple models we used to learn in elementary school"
Now of course, the focus of school curricula has changed somewhat.
Indeed.
*Le sigh*
Professor, this nonsense will never stop.
Models of estimates of guesses.
How very science-y.
And always runs in one direction, too.
I remember reading years ago of a correlation of cancer in proximity to electric transmission lines, then studies that showed the opposite (closer to T lines meant less cancer). With all the proposed alarmist shift from fossil fuels to electrification, building heat pumps and cars, it might be interesting to dust those studies off.
I appreciate you raising this subject. I particularly find studies conducted by epidemiologists in the nutrition field concerning. I have previously mentioned professor Bart Kay, who effectively debunks the misunderstandings that arise from such studies and the people in the media that run with false conclusions from such studies - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPXRNC1ikcs
I don't want to solely target epidemiology for criticism; because I hold two psychology degrees, I must acknowledge that in recent years I have discovered that numerous psych studies, even the ones that are considered fundamental and frequently referred to that I touted for years, do not live up to the claims they presented due the similar reasons that you bring up here.
It is amazing how many "causes" people create for themselves to worry about. I live a few hundred miles south of coal country, so it will probably take awhile for the coal dust to start fighting the 2nd-hand tobacco smoke and micro-plastics that are gradually filling our oceans and all of our lungs. Don't Worry. Be Happy. Life is short enough without wasting our time dwelling on fantasies and imaginary terrors.
What are the "idols" of Gen Z? Does "science" and the religion of global warming have more worshippers than Taylor Swift? The world wonders for a moment and then turns on the television.
I'm starting to think that nearly everything that has words «risk ratio» in it should be treated as suspicious. It's too often a way to hide two poorly estimated probabilities by dividing them one by the other, thus only increasing uncertainty.
On a tangentially related note, that «masks increase the risk of COVID» study that's making rounds today is unfortunately, erm, Not Very Good™, too.
It seems to this non scientist that the word science conflates two different objects of study:inert nature and human nature. The first has many cause and effect claims bc variables can be controlled. The second is very difficult to control for variables bc humans themselves are so variable: genetics, culture, environment, personal choice etc. Hence the substitution for cause and effect of associative studies.
Even more important is the fact that study of humans is frequently political. Which requires accounting for the incentives of the investigators and the application of trade offs. In this case, what are the beneficial effects of coal use.
Gee, where have we seen this before? 🤔 Seems like we had these people promoting “The Science” the past 3-4 years and now look what is coming out. Time to start thinking for ourselves and not relying on Fauci’s “Scientism”.
So lets see if I have this right. Some scientists gathered a few of their favourite models and estimates pertaining to “Mortality risk” from coal dust. They applied rigorous statistical techniques to develop models of those models. From which they derived an estimate of “number of deaths attributable to coal PM2.5” over a period of years. Which they multiplied, (or was it divided?), by the number of "excess deaths" in somewhere, somewhere. And were able to calculate a meaningful (to them) risk profile.
Right!
Minor statistical note: The words “estimate”, or “estimated” occur no fewer than 54 times in the body of the article.
Well over half way into my eighth decade, I've always believed the greatest cause of death in the elderly is TIME.
Perhaps a statistician can prove it and suggest legislation to make it go away...