• meep_launcher@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I’m not disagreeing with this necessarily, but I don’t like seeing a post by an account I have no idea about stating something as scientific fact, and then having that post taken as fact point blank. Once again, not trying to say what she is saying is incorrect, I just get concerned when I see bandwagoning on some random person’s take.

    That said, if you find the studies on this, please please please do us all a favor and comment those!

    • faythofdragons@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      3 days ago

      Here’s a decent meta-analysis you can start with.

      Sixteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. The reviews were comprised of nine peer-reviewed articles and reports from systematic review databases, five technical reports, and two working papers. Table 1 shows the reviews organized by objectives and geography

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      There is a mountain of evidence and everything she says is common knowledge at this point to anyone who has spent even a few minutes looking it up. You can just use you favorite search engine to see for yourself.

      You really just come off sounding aloof and uninformed. What evidence!? When you are swimming in a sea surrounded by it.

      • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sorry I was too busy yelling at other people on other threads.

        But also my concern was about the reaction to the post, not necessarily the post itself, though the two are connected