We largely dont like it because it is a ridiculous conclusory assertion with zero evidence.
Even with evidence, there is a large likelihood of being a spurious regression. Gayness has increased coincident with seed oil use over time. You might as well blame global warming or the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
We largely dont like it because it is a ridiculous conclusory assertion with zero evidence.
Even with evidence, there is a large likelihood of being a spurious regression. Gayness has increased coincident with seed oil use over time. You might as well blame global warming or the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
It might have helped if you led with some facts and evidence.
It sounds hokey on its face. Wouldn't we be consuming seed oils by eating seeds (such as nuts)? Why have we seen no connection between this and eating peanuts but see it with peanut oil? Ditto canola, safflower, sunflower, corn, rice bran, etc?
It's not unscientific to declare spurious regressions out of hand. That is literally the null hypothesis that must be rejected with strong evidence.
We largely dont like it because it is a ridiculous conclusory assertion with zero evidence.
Even with evidence, there is a large likelihood of being a spurious regression. Gayness has increased coincident with seed oil use over time. You might as well blame global warming or the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
It might have helped if you led with some facts and evidence.
It sounds hokey on its face. Wouldn't we be consuming seed oils by eating seeds (such as nuts)? Why have we seen no connection between this and eating peanuts but see it with peanut oil? Ditto canola, safflower, sunflower, corn, rice bran, etc?
It's not unscientific to declare spurious regressions out of hand. That is literally the null hypothesis that must be rejected with strong evidence.