sircac

Everyone? First time that I am aware of this possibility, either I lived under a stone or my sources are far from that “everyone”…

Many things, specially traumatic ones, rewires your brain

So do I on Civ…

The causation was an adendum to the context, the rest apply to the “statistically significant” claim

I am worry about the systematic error treatment of this data, cancer is per se very abnormal in growing parameters…

And what are the systematic errors on that? Cancer cells are abnormal in many ways per se, specially growing stats…

To be “2.5x the reference” a “statistically significant” deviation depends exclusively of the errors, including systematics, and I doubt that such has been so strongly constrained, known the abnormal behaviour and growing of cancer tissues in general versus none, not to mention that even if such can be evaluated as a significant deviation it does not imply causation, it can perfectly be consequence of the sample argument before (abnormal grown, which may imply abnormal densities easily) so I am still at a loss of the conclusions…

They are also found everywhere else, what does such statement try to imply?