Hey so, is this a normal thing in meta analyses ?
We identified 46 studies for inclusion in our analysis. Of these, 27 studies reported positive associations (significant links to NDDs), 9 showed null associations (no significant link), and 4 indicated negative associations (protective effects).
27+9+4 is 40 I think ? What happened to the 6 other papers ? I’m always confused by the whole “we ignored half of the studies and we won’t tell you why”, if they can also ignore some of the 46 studies they selected, what does the 46 number mean ?
bizarroland@lemmy.world 2 days ago
This guy literally had part of his brain eaten by worms.
That should eternally preclude you from giving health advice.
running_ragged@lemmy.world 2 days ago
“People shouldn’t take medical advice from me”
theguardian.com/…/rfk-jr-kennedy-senate-house-hea…
VoterFrog@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Brain worms he got from eating roadkill.
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Didn’t he just claim that in a divorce court to explain neurological issues?
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
He’s a real life zombie eating brains of gullible people.