Discouraging is only that there are still people like you around who think they have a clue, while after just a few comments it becomes obvious that they know very little about the subject they are talking about. Mentioning Occam’s Razor, a basic concept, which you even managed to misinterpret, was clear evidence of that. Even worse, instead of engaging in a technical discussion like someone genuinely interested in science would do, you increasingly turned the conversation into amateur psychoanalysis about my ego. That told me everything I needed to know. You are free to continue writing comments, but I won’t be answering them. If you consider that a win, that’s entirely up to you.

The more you write about science, statistics, and causality, the more obvious it becomes that your confidence is doing the heavy lifting where methodological understanding should be.

You cannot compare a bullet passing through a heart - an entirely physical process - with diseases from cancer - complex biochemical processes. This is statistically and logically wrong - like comparing apples and oranges, although your example is even more wrong. Apples and oranges are at least fruits, but heart and cancer?

The entire field of ontology is complex in itself. I agree that alcohol CAN (!) increase the chance to get cancer, but - again - Paracelsus plays an imminent role, which is even not considered! Also possible interactions with all the other environmental, psychological etc variables are missing. This diminishes considerably the value of this study.

If I have time and the motivation, I could dig deeper into the design. But it seems to have remarkable flaws and thus makes it in the context of medicine and science a pub, which should be considered with caution!

So more kilometres of street equals larger distances and these larger distances have created U.S. car dependency? And I thought that shorter ways create car dependency. /s

Wow, a logical master work from Yale university 🤣😂 Are they going for the Ig Nobel???

« Could » is the word. It literally means: we don’t know. It stays an assumption.

BTW, was Paracelsus considered in the study?

Perhaps this one:

Proton Mail -> Tuta Mail

Why? I would be careful with Proton Mail b/c it presumably advocates the Swiss surveillance and security law, which allows to keep information for a longer period of time.

BTW, you can add:

GitHub -> Codeberg (or Forgejo)

In Germany a US doctor is treated who got Ebola while treating patients (BBC News).

AFAIK preservatives (“préservatifs”) means in French condom - as this article is related to a French Institute I am kinda inclined to inform about that 😂, not that anybody starts to worry about condoms in food.