I'd rather be strongly wrong than weakly right!
I wonder what is the relevance of this kind of study to the entire
population.? This could, of course, be a pointer, nothing more!
Has anyone looked at the composition of what children eat either at
school or at home? The milk they drink could be loaded with bovine growth
hormone and antibiotics given to cows! The chicken they eat is similarly
loaded with growth hormone and antibiotics used to shorten the egg to
table time of the bird. What is the end product of the sugar equivalents
in the present soft drinks that children are fond of, thanks to the ads,
and its effect on the human system? Human greed to make more money and his
proclivity for comfort will certainly rob all of us of our health in the
not too distant future!
The fruits and vegetables that children consume must be having enough
fertilisers and insecticides sprayed to protect the crop. Why are we
having this myopia of looking at things in a reductionist style while what
happens to humans as time evolves depends on the whole and not on the bits
and pieces? It is, of course fashionable to do this kind of reductionist
research for publication.
I wonder when are we going to have a change in the paradigm of
medical research sans statistics that we make up and then look up? I know
I am airing unwelcome comments, but would someone THINK deeply about all
these? The risk factor hypothesis seems to be very fashionable while no
one would want to know why the majority, having similar risks, escapes the
tragedy? Are there asset factors that we are missing?
Competing interests: No competing interests