Are you actually reading my messages or just getting a vibe and running with it or what? That picture wasn’t meant to be scientific evidence it was simply to demonstrate the falseness of your point about the actual scientific paper not being linked in the article.
I can tell you are defensive about being treated as stupid which isnt what time trying to do. Actually read what my comments say please.
OK so where is the actual scientific paper?
I don̈́t really care that much about journalistic interpretation, because their knowledge is generally sub par, and their reporting sometimes even decidedly misrepresentative.
I’d much rather read the actual paper. I have even seen papers where the conclusion is contradictory to their own results in their research!!! Which to me indicate a paid for conclusion.
No skin in the argument, I just came to the comments trying to find the study because that link is broken for me. If it’s working for you, would you mind linking it here? I can’t find the specific one being referenced thru the miasma of google being absolute garbage and it being a recent enough publication that the academic DBs I have access to seemingly don’t have that issue yet.
The link is now broken for me too. I happened to have it bookmarked after having a very similar conversation about it when it was posted to reddit from gizmodo.
Are you actually reading my messages or just getting a vibe and running with it or what? That picture wasn’t meant to be scientific evidence it was simply to demonstrate the falseness of your point about the actual scientific paper not being linked in the article.
I can tell you are defensive about being treated as stupid which isnt what time trying to do. Actually read what my comments say please.
OK so where is the actual scientific paper?
I don̈́t really care that much about journalistic interpretation, because their knowledge is generally sub par, and their reporting sometimes even decidedly misrepresentative.
I’d much rather read the actual paper. I have even seen papers where the conclusion is contradictory to their own results in their research!!! Which to me indicate a paid for conclusion.
Go to the guardian article from the OP. Find the link that was in the image I posted. Its pretty close to the top.
No skin in the argument, I just came to the comments trying to find the study because that link is broken for me. If it’s working for you, would you mind linking it here? I can’t find the specific one being referenced thru the miasma of google being absolute garbage and it being a recent enough publication that the academic DBs I have access to seemingly don’t have that issue yet.
(splash screen at the broken link)
The link is now broken for me too. I happened to have it bookmarked after having a very similar conversation about it when it was posted to reddit from gizmodo.
https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article-abstract/47/1/bgag015/8555982?login=false