this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
29 points (91.4% liked)
Public Health
1666 readers
63 users here now
For issues concerning:
- Public Health
- Global Health
- Health Systems & Policy
- Environmental Health
- Epidemiology
- etc.
๐ฉบ This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.
Related Communities
- Medical Community Hub
- Medicine
- Medicine Canada
- Premed
- Premed Canada
- Public Health (๐)
See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)
Rules
Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.
Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content
Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They're controlling for that...
The real sticking point is another way to say a rate doubled, is that it increased from 0.0004% rate to 0.0008% rate, is an increase of 0.0004%.
That's most likely going on here, and is something we've always known.
It's not like someone is born destined to experience these conditions, people are just suspectable at various rates, so for some people right on the line, weird shit can tip them over when they wouldn't have before.
Do the same test with sugar or caffeine and your likely to get similar results even, but good luck finding control groups that aren't drastically different in other ways.
We also can't control the study the other way, and force kids to smoke weed
Anyone acting like these types of studies proves anything safe or unsafe, at best doesn't know what they're talking about.
You can only controll for known previous conditions.
And genes could be a driving factor.
The last paragraph in the article seems to indicate that being born into low income families increases psychic health risks.
Fully agree that studies like these are pretty much useless. They are the reason we get media outlets to proclaim bullshit like "drinking 1 glass of wine everyday is good for your heart"
What is Psychic health?
I could quote pieces of the article until (hopefully) you read all the bits and understand...
But can you try reading the article first?
From the study itself
That makes it useless. Until you can show a mechanism it's just an exercise in paper writing.