I notice that citation #2 is paywalled. It is the only one published in the last decade (barely). Did you read past the abstract of any of these?
Lots of "correlations" "associations" etc. You are assuming causality where none may in fact exist. Or could be reversed.
In any city there are zip/postal codes where people have increased morbidity and mortality. You could find/replace zip/postal codes into all the above text and it would still be true. Are the zip/postal codes themselves causing that? What if we just reorganized mail? Are the postal workers the underlying problem?
citation #3 is very telling of underlying attitude: these people are a drain on the rest of us.
You're right that correlation does not equal causation, which is precisely why techniques have been developed to identify causal relationships, for example, Mendelian randomization. Guess what the MR studies show?
"A Mendelian randomization analysis of 228,466 women and 195,041 men showed that obesity causes coronary artery disease, stroke (particularly ischemic), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, type 2 and 1 diabetes mellitus, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, chronic liver disease, and acute and chronic renal failure. Higher BMI led to higher risk of type 2 diabetes in women than in men. Waist-hip-ratio led to a higher risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and higher risk of chronic renal failure in men than women. Obesity traits have an etiological role in the majority of the leading global causes of death." https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008405
Published 2019, because an article is automatically wrong if it wasn't published in the last 10 years or something /s
Congratulations, you picked on the one outcome that the authors of the genetics article (if you had even read it, you would have seen) said "Whereas most obesity-disease associations were largely similar, adjusting for smoking status resulted in diminished magnitudes of effect for COPD and lung cancer, suggesting potential mediation." In other words, the COPD association was potentially mediated by smoking but the other associations "were largely similar". This supports the conclusion that obesity is causally associated with a range of diseases even if COPD isn't one of them. Extremely lazy argumentation on your part, and still denying the science.
It's not like I made it up, the data demonstrate it under robust analysis. If we're going to be scientific socialists we should be scientific. You wanted a recent study with causal inference, I gave you one. Are you going to update your priors or carry on as you were?
And also, since what we originally started arguing about was frosted flakes.
Is it really on topic to start throwing Genetics articles at this? All the above is about "obesity traits" which as I understand it are referring to intrinsic stuff not consumption of frosted flakes.
My previous point about neighbourhoods still stands. Or being racialized. You know how closely all this anti fat shit is related to racial essentialism right?
Your old articles are fine if there is a reason you chose them. I asked you directly if you actually read them, because one of them is paywalled and >99% of people can't read the link you provided. Maybe you are at a university of something and you could read it and didn't realize that. Lack of response suggests that I was correct in my assumption that these 3 articles were chosen by means of cherry picking because they supported your position.
Is it really on topic to start throwing Genetics articles at this?
You literally disputed there being a causal association between obesity and morbidity and mortality when there demonstrably is, so yes, it is on topic.
all this anti fat shit
I literally didn't say anything 'anti fat'. I said that there is a causal association between obesity and morbidity and mortality. And there is.
these 3 articles were chosen by means of cherry picking
There are numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses finding a robust association between obesity and morbidity and mortality. At this point you are just outright denying the science, which is your prerogative and all but don't pretend you're making anything other than an emotional, heuristic, non-scientific argument. You refuse to update your beliefs based on the evidence which shows to me that you're not engaging in good faith, so I'll stop replying now. I hope you come around to scientific thinking some day.
I notice that citation #2 is paywalled. It is the only one published in the last decade (barely). Did you read past the abstract of any of these?
Lots of "correlations" "associations" etc. You are assuming causality where none may in fact exist. Or could be reversed.
In any city there are zip/postal codes where people have increased morbidity and mortality. You could find/replace zip/postal codes into all the above text and it would still be true. Are the zip/postal codes themselves causing that? What if we just reorganized mail? Are the postal workers the underlying problem?
citation #3 is very telling of underlying attitude: these people are a drain on the rest of us.
You're right that correlation does not equal causation, which is precisely why techniques have been developed to identify causal relationships, for example, Mendelian randomization. Guess what the MR studies show?
"A Mendelian randomization analysis of 228,466 women and 195,041 men showed that obesity causes coronary artery disease, stroke (particularly ischemic), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, type 2 and 1 diabetes mellitus, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, chronic liver disease, and acute and chronic renal failure. Higher BMI led to higher risk of type 2 diabetes in women than in men. Waist-hip-ratio led to a higher risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and higher risk of chronic renal failure in men than women. Obesity traits have an etiological role in the majority of the leading global causes of death." https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008405
Published 2019, because an article is automatically wrong if it wasn't published in the last 10 years or something /s
Sorry to make so many comments on this but it is so fucking wild. Please tell me you believe it.
I went to look what the professionals in the field believe. I checked American Thoracic Society: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). I opened several of the most relevant looking articles and ctrl-f for "bmi" and "obes". The only relevant result I found was:
Undiagnosed Obstructive Lung Disease in the United States. Associated Factors and Long-term Mortality | Annals of the American Thoracic Society:
And specifically I will mention that there were not results in An Official American Thoracic Society Public Policy Statement: Novel Risk Factors and the Global Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. But you know what does cause COPD? Cigarettes and other airborne exposures.
But here you are to tell me that obesity causes COPD. Tell me you know what COPD is and that you believe that.
Congratulations, you picked on the one outcome that the authors of the genetics article (if you had even read it, you would have seen) said "Whereas most obesity-disease associations were largely similar, adjusting for smoking status resulted in diminished magnitudes of effect for COPD and lung cancer, suggesting potential mediation." In other words, the COPD association was potentially mediated by smoking but the other associations "were largely similar". This supports the conclusion that obesity is causally associated with a range of diseases even if COPD isn't one of them. Extremely lazy argumentation on your part, and still denying the science.
you think obesity causes T1DM and COPD?
It's not like I made it up, the data demonstrate it under robust analysis. If we're going to be scientific socialists we should be scientific. You wanted a recent study with causal inference, I gave you one. Are you going to update your priors or carry on as you were?
And also, since what we originally started arguing about was frosted flakes.
Is it really on topic to start throwing Genetics articles at this? All the above is about "obesity traits" which as I understand it are referring to intrinsic stuff not consumption of frosted flakes.
My previous point about neighbourhoods still stands. Or being racialized. You know how closely all this anti fat shit is related to racial essentialism right?
Your old articles are fine if there is a reason you chose them. I asked you directly if you actually read them, because one of them is paywalled and >99% of people can't read the link you provided. Maybe you are at a university of something and you could read it and didn't realize that. Lack of response suggests that I was correct in my assumption that these 3 articles were chosen by means of cherry picking because they supported your position.
You literally disputed there being a causal association between obesity and morbidity and mortality when there demonstrably is, so yes, it is on topic.
I literally didn't say anything 'anti fat'. I said that there is a causal association between obesity and morbidity and mortality. And there is.
There are numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses finding a robust association between obesity and morbidity and mortality. At this point you are just outright denying the science, which is your prerogative and all but don't pretend you're making anything other than an emotional, heuristic, non-scientific argument. You refuse to update your beliefs based on the evidence which shows to me that you're not engaging in good faith, so I'll stop replying now. I hope you come around to scientific thinking some day.