|
Pittsburg, Kansas | Thanks for that explanation.
The .001 was just an example on how stated benefits can be misleading and was not addressing anything paricular. Just showing how statistics can be used to mislead.
Another confounding factor is the underlying diet. For example someone on a high carb conventional diet could benefit more than someone on a low carb or some other specific diet. I have not looked at the study so just making generalizations.
Is good you pointed it out. I did not know, and still do not know anything specific about it. Thanks for the info. Treating a hundred people and 6.5 of them benefitting might be worth taking it if a person is high risk.
John
Edited by John Burns 2/4/2020 11:18
| |
|