As far as I can see they also didn’t test for a difference between passive and active smoking - just assumed they were different because one result was significant and the other was non significant. Despite having overlapping confidence intervals.
I can do you a nice epidemiological meta analysis in 10 hours. People who live in places with single payer health systems are fatter than those who live in universal health systems based on co-payments by the patient or SHI. And that imposes a cost on the societies with single payer systems in terms of lack of incentives and responsible behaviours.
Furthermore every country with a single payer system has dropped down world league tables of prosperity, but correlation ain't causation so maybe there's another underlying cause like say collectivism as a government philosophy.
These people are all charlatans. They probably all know they are charlatans. But none of this matters.
Their role is to come out with “studies” which support courses of action which governments want to pursue anyway but need the cloak of “science” to provide the spur. And of course they provide the material for soundbite headlines in newspapers whose “journalists” have neither the ability nor inclination to examine the underlying claims, in order to get the public onside with the government action that will inevitably follow.
As far as I can see they also didn’t test for a difference between passive and active smoking - just assumed they were different because one result was significant and the other was non significant. Despite having overlapping confidence intervals.
I can do you a nice epidemiological meta analysis in 10 hours. People who live in places with single payer health systems are fatter than those who live in universal health systems based on co-payments by the patient or SHI. And that imposes a cost on the societies with single payer systems in terms of lack of incentives and responsible behaviours.
Furthermore every country with a single payer system has dropped down world league tables of prosperity, but correlation ain't causation so maybe there's another underlying cause like say collectivism as a government philosophy.
These people are all charlatans. They probably all know they are charlatans. But none of this matters.
Their role is to come out with “studies” which support courses of action which governments want to pursue anyway but need the cloak of “science” to provide the spur. And of course they provide the material for soundbite headlines in newspapers whose “journalists” have neither the ability nor inclination to examine the underlying claims, in order to get the public onside with the government action that will inevitably follow.