I’m glad this was mentioned in the article that male breast cancer is much more likely to be caused by carcinogenic exposures (read: occupational) than female breast cancer which has the added “benefit”of letting industry/employers off the hook.

What a petty and stupid little cunt.

As an epidemiologist myself, I’m unclear how these computer scientists and economists think they’re using epidemiology to own history??? Kindly don’t, friends.

I talk to my computer when using Windows already, it’s just usually to scream at it “what in the fuck are you doing OH MY GOD?!”

Not to self-promote but I was involved in the Can-PCC collective on the subcommittee about prevention of PCC and we recommended asymptomatic masking in almost all settings, even with the limited evidence that the “gold standard” RCTs provide: can-pcc.recmap.org/plrs?recomme...

Kelly, this sucks very badly. I totally understand orgs wanting to balance risks and harms but citing the propagandist Cochrane review as “unbiased” is actually deeply offensive.

This is nice! Researchers often ask (if they do at all) more nuance about gender than sex (which makes sense!) but I appreciate the consideration of sexes outside the binary.