- Thread starter
- #761
Gee64
Well-Known Member
I was leaning more towards them not telling us things like are the drinkers very mild drinkers, or drunks?Here’s where their participants/study came from
Our Research | The Dunedin Study - Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health & Development Research Unit
dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz
“The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (Dunedin Study) is an ongoing, longitudinal study of the health, development and well-being of a general sample of New Zealanders. They were studied at birth (1972-73), followed up and assessed at the age of three when the longitudinal study was established. Since then they have been assessed every two years until the age of 15, then at ages 18 (1990-91), 21 (1993-94), 26 (1998-99), 32 (2003-2005), and 38 (2010-2012). The Study members have recently been assessed at age 45 (2017-2019) and it is hoped to continue further assessments in the future.”
Are the stoners scoring poorly also the crowd with a grade 7 education?
What is everyone eating?
Are they all living in the same environment?
Broad studies can show anything you want to extrapolate.
The broader the study the more you can extrapolate in different directions.
Take 10,000 people of equal age and health, put them in the same environment as each other, with the same education, eating the same diet, after being raised identically, doing the same routine as each other, and then you have some narrow field data to extrapolate from.
Studies that hunt mice with a shotgun are useless.
They are generally funded by and for a corporate direction, or a political will.
This could very well be a good study, but the waters are so muddied we will never know.
Follow the money.
Someone benefits from this enough to pick up the bill.
If a study isn't transparent on its funding, move along.
If it is transparent, at least you have a chance of forming your own opinion.