John Pickering
@kiwiskinz.bsky.social
Research Professor, but prefer Scrymaster. Embedded scientist and statistician in emergency medicine. See #NerdNite talk https://youtu.be/Gd180NiWSCg. Don't believe in statistical significance. Amateur astronomer and will post photos of the heavens.
There is something wrong with this claim. The rates of events were 15.7% in the vit D group & 18.4% in standard care a 14.6% or 2.7 percentage pts reduction. Either these rates are wrong or the 52% reduction claim is.
November 12, 2025 at 6:24 AM
There is something wrong with this claim. The rates of events were 15.7% in the vit D group & 18.4% in standard care a 14.6% or 2.7 percentage pts reduction. Either these rates are wrong or the 52% reduction claim is.
Funny you say that. ~25 years ago & had a qn asked along similar lines about politicians simultaneously in a church & in a mall about a km apart. Most mall goers didn't think home behaviour mattered for the politician to do their job.
Simply, you were old fashioned even then Richard. 🙂
Simply, you were old fashioned even then Richard. 🙂
November 12, 2025 at 2:26 AM
Funny you say that. ~25 years ago & had a qn asked along similar lines about politicians simultaneously in a church & in a mall about a km apart. Most mall goers didn't think home behaviour mattered for the politician to do their job.
Simply, you were old fashioned even then Richard. 🙂
Simply, you were old fashioned even then Richard. 🙂
Maybe because they are busy sending emails out to potential reviewers of the data asking them to give their time for free.
November 11, 2025 at 8:32 PM
Maybe because they are busy sending emails out to potential reviewers of the data asking them to give their time for free.
Sorry @erictopol.bsky.social it doesn't. All participants were normal coffee drinkers. Therefore, the coffee-drinker arm is the Control arm. The intervention of going cold turkey increased the hazard of AF by 64% (100/0.61). The whole report is written from the wrong perspective.
November 10, 2025 at 12:02 AM
Sorry @erictopol.bsky.social it doesn't. All participants were normal coffee drinkers. Therefore, the coffee-drinker arm is the Control arm. The intervention of going cold turkey increased the hazard of AF by 64% (100/0.61). The whole report is written from the wrong perspective.
Please revisit this. The paper & media have the statistics around the wrong way. All participants normally drank coffee. This makes the coffee drinking group the Control arm & those who went cold turkey the Intervention arm. Correctly: Going cold turkey increased the hazard for recurrent AF by 64%!
November 9, 2025 at 9:04 PM
Please revisit this. The paper & media have the statistics around the wrong way. All participants normally drank coffee. This makes the coffee drinking group the Control arm & those who went cold turkey the Intervention arm. Correctly: Going cold turkey increased the hazard for recurrent AF by 64%!
Please revisit this. The paper & media have the statuistics around the wrong way. All participants normally drank coffee. This makes the coffee drinking group the control arm & those who went cold turkey the intervention arm. Correctly: Going cold turkey increased the hazard for recurrent AF by 64%!
November 9, 2025 at 9:02 PM
Please revisit this. The paper & media have the statuistics around the wrong way. All participants normally drank coffee. This makes the coffee drinking group the control arm & those who went cold turkey the intervention arm. Correctly: Going cold turkey increased the hazard for recurrent AF by 64%!
Please don't say this. The paper has it all around the wrong way. The coffee drinkers were the Control group. The Intervention was going cold-turkey. So, NOT coffee may be beneficial, rather going cold turkey may be detrimental (64% increased in hazard).
November 9, 2025 at 8:57 PM
Please don't say this. The paper has it all around the wrong way. The coffee drinkers were the Control group. The Intervention was going cold-turkey. So, NOT coffee may be beneficial, rather going cold turkey may be detrimental (64% increased in hazard).
This is shockingly poor science reporting. All participants normally drank coffee. The control was drink coffee as normal. The intervention was go cold turkey. Therefore the conclusion should be that going cold turkey increased the hazard of recurrent AF by 64%.
Advise people NOT to go cold turkey
Advise people NOT to go cold turkey
November 9, 2025 at 8:41 PM
This is shockingly poor science reporting. All participants normally drank coffee. The control was drink coffee as normal. The intervention was go cold turkey. Therefore the conclusion should be that going cold turkey increased the hazard of recurrent AF by 64%.
Advise people NOT to go cold turkey
Advise people NOT to go cold turkey
So, stopping drinking coffee is harmful?
November 9, 2025 at 6:06 PM
So, stopping drinking coffee is harmful?
Good catch Grant - I was wondering why it was not as windy as forecast here #Oct23Storm
October 23, 2025 at 3:02 AM
Good catch Grant - I was wondering why it was not as windy as forecast here #Oct23Storm
And the lone one in Southern Marlborough just north of Kaikoura is really a kite surfer who is now at 15,000 feet. #Oct23Storm
October 23, 2025 at 12:32 AM
And the lone one in Southern Marlborough just north of Kaikoura is really a kite surfer who is now at 15,000 feet. #Oct23Storm
It can be "interesting"... I built a house with 55% thicker walls than normal & I can hear the wind starting up again. I feel sorry for the folk with the standard walls...going to get noisy.
October 22, 2025 at 9:07 PM
It can be "interesting"... I built a house with 55% thicker walls than normal & I can hear the wind starting up again. I feel sorry for the folk with the standard walls...going to get noisy.
Ahh, Richard, I see you were very careful not to state that "inflation runs at faster than the speed of light"
October 20, 2025 at 1:09 AM
Ahh, Richard, I see you were very careful not to state that "inflation runs at faster than the speed of light"