Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Strenuous exercise is bad for you...or maybe not actually.

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    He is correct that people should have ignored his headline statement and looked at the actual statistics and then they would have instantly spotted that it was all nonsense. But why was he deliberately trying to mislead people and the media then?

    Don't suppose he could get grant funding based on how many media outlets publish links to his papers? Or could that just be me making stuff up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭plodder


    I think he's covering his embarrassment by claiming that at least the data wasn't faked (which it wasn't). But, the conclusions were still wrong if he was saying that strenuous exercise is bad for you. Just shows not all research is of the same quality.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,876 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    ultraman1 wrote: »
    think there may of been some bluff about this a few weeks ago
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32160231#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


    Its in the daily mail also, but oddly, they had article saying the opposite on sat:rolleyes:


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    plodder wrote: »
    I think he's covering his embarrassment by claiming that at least the data wasn't faked (which it wasn't). But, the conclusions were still wrong if he was saying that strenuous exercise is bad for you. Just shows not all research is of the same quality.

    +1

    He must have been forced into making this retraction of his headline statement from the report. It really didn't take much to see it was a load of rubbish, but for him to claim surprise that a report where the evidence was "two people died of unknown reasons" and the conclusion of the equivalent correlation of "leaving the house on a Tuesday is 173% more dangerous than a Wednesday" and that the media then went along with what he claimed in that headline is ridiculous. He knew it was rubbish, but deliberately tried to fool people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 339 ✭✭vanderlyle


    It shouldn't have been misunderstood. If you normally read papers you could say 'Ah! This is not good statistically - this is too thin.'

    i.e. I lied to you but you're the fool for believing it. Ar$ehole.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement