"We've probably underestimated the impact of deep-space radiation on not just cardiovascular disease but health in general", said lead author of the study, exercise physiologist Dr. Michael Delp of Florida State University.
However, this study is pretty damn flawed, with the small number of Apollo astronauts. Not much you can do, but pretty hard to draw any major conclusions from this.
RE: There is undoubtedly negative health effects from
However, this study is pretty damn flawed, with the small number of Apollo astronauts. Not much you can do, but pretty hard to draw any major conclusions from this.
I just went through a list of the astronauts who rode Apollo to the moon. So far, five have died. Armstrong passed at 82, another passed at age 86, Jack Sweigert died at 51 of cancer and Jim Irwin died of heart disease at 61 (he had a heart problem during the mission.) and one died at age 69 in a traffic accident, Pete Conrad.
The rest are still alive all in their 80's with the oldest age 88 (Jim Lovell) and the youngest 80.
These guys all seem to be living into ripe old age.
I just went through a list of the astronauts who rode Apollo to the moon. So far, five have died. Armstrong passed at 82, another passed at age 86, Jack Sweigert died at 51 of cancer and Jim Irwin died of heart disease at 61 (he had a heart problem during the mission.) and one died at age 69 in a traffic accident, Pete Conrad.
The rest are still alive all in their 80's with the oldest age 88 (Jim Lovell) and the youngest 80.
These guys all seem to be living into ripe old age.
Those guys also weren't exactly selected from a random sample of the population. They were picked to be astronauts in large part because they were in excellent health. Lots of confounding factors here.
I just went through a list of the astronauts who rode Apollo to the moon. So far, five have died. Armstrong passed at 82, another passed at age 86, Jack Sweigert died at 51 of cancer and Jim Irwin died of heart disease at 61 (he had a heart problem during the mission.) and one died at age 69 in a traffic accident, Pete Conrad.
The rest are still alive all in their 80's with the oldest age 88 (Jim Lovell) and the youngest 80.
These guys all seem to be living into ripe old age.
You would think that someone who was even nominally intelligent would peruse the study, or at least the article about the study, before such an inane comment.
It's not talking about the 12 who walked on the moon, but the 24 who have gone beyond low-earth orbit; 8 have actually died. Again, a small sample size, but what do you think they have?
By the way, the study talks about cardiovascular disease as well as mortality, so who cares that the astronauts are living into their 80's? It's a very standard statistical technique, to test a group of similar participants that differ by, largely, one feature: deeper space missions. If cardiovascular diseases are more prevalent in this population, this isn't an indicator that something is up? The magnitude of the findings may be wrong, but certainly not the direction.
Plus, as Enoch noted, longetivity is a poor measure to refute something when these individuals are often in the best shape possible, and have been selected for their general robustness.
project long-term difficulties from much deeper-space missions, such as going to Mars...
People shouldn't be going to Mars. There's no reason for it - you can automate just about anything Humans would be doing, including experiments, analysis, collecting and even returning samples.
The only people I'd consider sending are Congressmen. :)
project long-term difficulties from much deeper-space missions, such as going to Mars...
People shouldn't be going to Mars. There's no reason for it - you can automate just about anything Humans would be doing, including experiments, analysis, collecting and even returning samples.
The only people I'd consider sending are Congressmen. :)
project long-term difficulties from much deeper-space missions, such as going to Mars...
People shouldn't be going to Mars. There's no reason for it - you can automate just about anything Humans would be doing, including experiments, analysis, collecting and even returning samples.
The only people I'd consider sending are Congressmen. :)
Don't you rail about economic inequality? It's the exact same short-term attitudes like this that stunt policies.
project long-term difficulties from much deeper-space missions, such as going to Mars...
People shouldn't be going to Mars. There's no reason for it - you can automate just about anything Humans would be doing, including experiments, analysis, collecting and even returning samples.
The only people I'd consider sending are Congressmen. :)
Don't you rail about economic inequality? It's the exact same short-term attitudes like this that stunt policies.
I don't follow - what part of that post are you referring to?
The serious part of the post - human bodies simply aren't built to withstand long periods in space. See Tim Peake's condition on returning from only 6 months in space for reference. That doesn't even begin to address other risks and hazards - radiation, SPACE MADNESS (See Ren & Stimpy for reference) :).
I'm all for expansion of Space Exploration and shit - almost ANY sort of Public Sector spending I'll support, but ESPECIALLY anything that requires heavy-duty engineering. Humongous defense budget? Selling record numbers and dollars of weapons to unstable governments? Count me in, cause THAT is a great high-paying job creator. :D
I just went through a list of the astronauts who rode Apollo to the moon. So far, five have died. Armstrong passed at 82, another passed at age 86, Jack Sweigert died at 51 of cancer and Jim Irwin died of heart disease at 61 (he had a heart problem during the mission.) and one died at age 69 in a traffic accident, Pete Conrad.
The rest are still alive all in their 80's with the oldest age 88 (Jim Lovell) and the youngest 80.
These guys all seem to be living into ripe old age.
You would think that someone who was even nominally intelligent would peruse the study, or at least the article about the study, before such an inane comment.
It's not talking about the 12 who walked on the moon, but the 24 who have gone beyond low-earth orbit; 8 have actually died. Again, a small sample size, but what do you think they have?
By the way, the study talks about cardiovascular disease as well as mortality, so who cares that the astronauts are living into their 80's? It's a very standard statistical technique, to test a group of similar participants that differ by, largely, one feature: deeper space missions. If cardiovascular diseases are more prevalent in this population, this isn't an indicator that something is up? The magnitude of the findings may be wrong, but certainly not the direction.
Plus, as Enoch noted, longetivity is a poor measure to refute something when these individuals are often in the best shape possible, and have been selected for their general robustness.
But carry on...
Here's the list of the 8 crews that went to the moorn and their ages. Keep in mind that the median life span for a white male is 76:
Apollo 12
Conrad (69 MV accident)
Gordon (86)
Beean (84)
Apollo 13
Lovell (88) second trip
Sweigart (51- cancer)
Haise 82
Apollo 14
Shepard (74-Deceased)
Roosa (61-pacreatitis)
Mitchell (85-deceased)
Apollo 15
Scott (84)
Wordon (84)
Irwin (61-heart attack-had heart problems during mission)
Apollo 16
Young (85) second trip
Mattingly (80)
Duke (80)
Apollo 17
Cernan (82) second trip
Evans (56 heart attack)
Schmitt (81)
24 astronauts (3 of whom made two trips.) 2 heart attacks, 1 pancreatitis, 2 cancer, 1 accidental, 1 surgical complications of bypass surgery and one of old age. 16 are still living- all in their 80's. Oddly, the 3 guys who made two trips (who were doubly exposed) are all still alive and pushing for age 90.
So, yeah, you can claim that this was an extraordinarily healthy group- 50 years ago- but compare this list to the list of say professional athletes of the same period who were also "in the best shape possible." Don't forget that many of these astronauts were smokers as well.
You would think someone who was even nominally intelligent would ask some basic questions, but you eggheads do stick together. It seems to me a poorly controlled "study" designed to garner headlines and research dollars that you should have more brains than to try and defend.
At some point, if you are serious about studying something in space, whether it's Mars, the moon, or Alpha Centauri - and we should - you will need humans there. Rovers can't improvise and the communication delay is impractical as it is.
because current modern day technology is insufficient is a canard. By scheduling something like this, you incentivize public spending in the area in which you want it. It's called a targeting principle.
There have been a number of suggestions (mainly theoretical at this moment, but now being turned towards serious application) for protecting a human body during an inter-planetary flight.
It would be great if you would actually understand research design (the basics would be fantastic), but even your poor knowledge of the sampling of an astronaut population is frightening enough to contemplate. The fact that you would compare this to the athlete population is astonishing. Other than drastic differences in education, can you think of any sizably different factors that are different, that are much more controlled for when comparing to other, LEO-only astronauts?
Again, just because you read a headline and not the actual study means diddlyshit. Health complications don't simply mean death; they also include morbidity, which is different than mortality (I know, they sure do sound alike).
with the outcome of interest not separating the two different sub-groups, which means that pure randomization is no longer a necessary condition. It's a well-developed technique (regression discontinuity on Wiki provides a decent explanation of some of the features).
And, since the sub-groups are appropriately homogeneous (as well as the other features that a quasi-experiment brings), the small sample size no longer means that the estimates will be incorrect, but simply biased (in this case, upwards). It's why cross-country OECD studies are published in very good journals.
It would be great if you would actually understand research design (the basics would be fantastic), but even your poor knowledge of the sampling of an astronaut population is frightening enough to contemplate. The fact that you would compare this to the athlete population is astonishing. Other than drastic differences in education, can you think of any sizably different factors that are different, that are much more controlled for when comparing to other, LEO-only astronauts?
Again, just because you read a headline and not the actual study means diddlyshit. Health complications don't simply mean death; they also include morbidity, which is different than mortality (I know, they sure do sound alike).
Not far anything, I would think radiation has a tendency to cause cancer.
What would be more interesting and probably a better sample pool will be the ISS astronauts - who spend months in space, not the 10 days for a lunar mission. Wonder if they did a better job insulating the ISS from radiation then the tin cans that went to the moon?
don't get published in Science very often. I wouldn't be surprised if future studies confound this.
Why? Think about the hypothesis: space radiation is damaging the cardiovascular system, causing increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. But we know the difference between space and terrestrial radiations, and we know the effects of terrestrial radiation on the heart. The only really sensitive part of the heart is the vascular endothelium (muscle is very tolerant to very high doses of both photons and particles). There are many more sensitive structures elsewhere in the body.
So the study is proposing that the unique pariticulate radiations of space are selectively damaging the heart, causing cardiac specific morbidity and motality, without impacting other sensitive organs which are getting equally exposed. Sounds dubious to me. But of course I'm a cynic
Many of the other areas of the body may not exhibit
unique signs like cardiac disease from radiation. And, given the age of the astronauts, poking and prodding to find other signs of morbidity is a risky venture. The LSAH, from where the data is from, doesn't report on a number of other diseases, for a variety of reasons. The major one being the ease to measure certain morbidities.
The study is not claiming that cardiac disease is the only mechanism through which people are impacted. It's that other areas (specifically cancers) have been studied; this is one of the first studies on a prevalent condition that is easily measurable.
In fact, the hypothesis makes a lot of sense. If heart disease is being exacerbated (or caused) by deep space radiation, then it is likely that there are other areas of the body (more sensitive, in your words) that are being impacted. The low-lying fruit can expose other things.
Also, Science has been very amenable, in the recent past, to the use of quasi-experiments, as the statistical methods have become very well known, especially recently.
The increased cardiovascular outcomes cited are end-effects of increased physiologic stress of deep space travel, as opposed to particulate radiation effects on the heart.
This study can't distinguish the two.
Also, the hypothesis has been tested in several papers very recently,
cause, but the differences in the astronaut population hint that there is something more than pure physiologic stress. And deep space radiation is another of the large differences, given the known effects on the heart.
Comparisons against other astronauts limit that as an explanatory factor, as compared to other studies that looked at terrestrial comparison groups.
I also think that people are mis-interpreting the study.
The initial evidence suggests that cardiovascular disease and death is different for deep-space astronauts than others who only performed LEO. They never suggest a mechanistic basis for this test.
They suggest deep space radiation as the cause based on a second part of the paper, where they investigate the impacts of irradiation on the cardiac system of mice.
In fact, the title of the paper suggests that their mechanistic basis is only possible, and that they are not dismissing other causes.
Kidneys, bone marrow, liver etc are all more sensitive
If the radiation exacerbates cardiac conditions later in life (like has been found in many studies on the long-term, late effects of radiation on the heart), other organs may not have been impacted.
The cumulative dosing impact can also affect the magnitude of terrestrial radiation-based therapies in life as well.
And again, the study does not definitively conclude that
radiation is the cause. It first tests the hypothesis that cardiovascular disease and death is more prevalent for non-LEO astronauts, and finds evidence.
The secondary hypothesis is to test whether radiation could be a causal mechanism. They find that radiation cannot be ruled out.
That does not mean that other explanations are not warranted and they have found a causal link. They have found that radiation is still a factor that needs to be explained.
of radiation to the heart is because we directly exposed it without exposing other organs. If other organs got the same dose as the heart at the same time, the individual would be dead long before any late effects on the heart could be seen.
Not true; a number of longitudinal studies have examined
is not an issue from those studies, based on the randomness of the events, actually. You can see the proof in "Mostly Harmless Econometrics" by Angrist.
And, by the way, how did these individuals "self-select" themselves
That sounds like some bullshit a Pope would spout in the Middle Ages.
Like everybody else I get pissed about some of the ways our government spend money, but I feel like I personally have gotten an enormous return on the money invested in our space program since its inception.
These are our best and brightest working to further our understanding of the universe, our place in it, and our capacity to explore it.
There isn't much, if anything, that is more important than that.
Curie, Bequerrel...none died from cardiac disease. It was aplastic anemia from complete bone marrow failure, leukemia, sarcoma....so if you eliminate all those guys and look for late effects of heart disease, its not going to tell you much.
This a new you. A couple hours in and you haven't insulted me yet. Have a good weekend.
has been recognized for decades, and for which there exist rather simple statistical fixes to eliminate the bias, especially in quasi-experimental settings. The previous book has plenty in there to explain how to eliminate it from studies, if you would like. In fact, most of the times it's related to mutual fund performance now, rather than the medical literature, as anyone with a pulse and a knowledge of statistics can offset it.
Curie and Becquerel? When was the Framingham Heart Study undertaken? 1949. In 1924, the American Heart Association was formed, largely because heart disease was unknown and little understood. Two individuals who died from other things when heart disease was little understood is prima facie evidence of the state of medicine, not the impact of radiation.
And why should I insult you anymore, when you are well aware of my perception of your abilities?
By the way, I would love an explanation as to how early death
I'm sorry for your sensitivity, as well. I'll try to avoid touching the 'he made an internet insult' nerve, even tangentially.
Competing events negatively impact statistical power? Not always; with proper test statistics (hazard ratios, with a proper specification, will have no statistically significant decline in power with competing risks) these can be negated.
In fact, this comment won't touch the main hypothesis of the paper, and since the second hypothesis was not a question of magnitude but of potential prediction, the qualitative interpretation won't change. The magnitude is irrelevant.
In fact, it doesn't necessarily use the best measures available
(they are suitably advanced that you have to do the computer programming on your own), but the following study shows that "competing risks" have been monitored in the literature, and methods have been developed to alleviate them, negating impacts on statistical power.
"Competing Risk of Death: An Important Consideration in Studies of Older Adults"
If anyone is a sadist and wants something more than
You can say whatever you want about me. I don't care. I pursue these discussion for fun. Part of which is watching you do anything you can to be "right".
However, this study is pretty damn flawed, with the small number of Apollo astronauts. Not much you can do, but pretty hard to draw any major conclusions from this.
However, this study is pretty damn flawed, with the small number of Apollo astronauts. Not much you can do, but pretty hard to draw any major conclusions from this.
yeah, talk about a small sample size...
The rest are still alive all in their 80's with the oldest age 88 (Jim Lovell) and the youngest 80.
These guys all seem to be living into ripe old age.
The rest are still alive all in their 80's with the oldest age 88 (Jim Lovell) and the youngest 80.
These guys all seem to be living into ripe old age.
Those guys also weren't exactly selected from a random sample of the population. They were picked to be astronauts in large part because they were in excellent health. Lots of confounding factors here.
The rest are still alive all in their 80's with the oldest age 88 (Jim Lovell) and the youngest 80.
These guys all seem to be living into ripe old age.
You would think that someone who was even nominally intelligent would peruse the study, or at least the article about the study, before such an inane comment.
It's not talking about the 12 who walked on the moon, but the 24 who have gone beyond low-earth orbit; 8 have actually died. Again, a small sample size, but what do you think they have?
By the way, the study talks about cardiovascular disease as well as mortality, so who cares that the astronauts are living into their 80's? It's a very standard statistical technique, to test a group of similar participants that differ by, largely, one feature: deeper space missions. If cardiovascular diseases are more prevalent in this population, this isn't an indicator that something is up? The magnitude of the findings may be wrong, but certainly not the direction.
Plus, as Enoch noted, longetivity is a poor measure to refute something when these individuals are often in the best shape possible, and have been selected for their general robustness.
But carry on...
I think radiation effects on their bodies is the least of their worries.
The only people I'd consider sending are Congressmen. :)
Quote:
project long-term difficulties from much deeper-space missions, such as going to Mars...
People shouldn't be going to Mars. There's no reason for it - you can automate just about anything Humans would be doing, including experiments, analysis, collecting and even returning samples.
The only people I'd consider sending are Congressmen. :)
My hopes for my short guy space camp business pitch went down the tubes with this cardiovascular news. Damn you space!!
Quote:
project long-term difficulties from much deeper-space missions, such as going to Mars...
People shouldn't be going to Mars. There's no reason for it - you can automate just about anything Humans would be doing, including experiments, analysis, collecting and even returning samples.
The only people I'd consider sending are Congressmen. :)
Don't you rail about economic inequality? It's the exact same short-term attitudes like this that stunt policies.
Quote:
In comment 13049414 kicker said:
Quote:
project long-term difficulties from much deeper-space missions, such as going to Mars...
People shouldn't be going to Mars. There's no reason for it - you can automate just about anything Humans would be doing, including experiments, analysis, collecting and even returning samples.
The only people I'd consider sending are Congressmen. :)
Don't you rail about economic inequality? It's the exact same short-term attitudes like this that stunt policies.
The serious part of the post - human bodies simply aren't built to withstand long periods in space. See Tim Peake's condition on returning from only 6 months in space for reference. That doesn't even begin to address other risks and hazards - radiation, SPACE MADNESS (See Ren & Stimpy for reference) :).
I'm all for expansion of Space Exploration and shit - almost ANY sort of Public Sector spending I'll support, but ESPECIALLY anything that requires heavy-duty engineering. Humongous defense budget? Selling record numbers and dollars of weapons to unstable governments? Count me in, cause THAT is a great high-paying job creator. :D
Quote:
I just went through a list of the astronauts who rode Apollo to the moon. So far, five have died. Armstrong passed at 82, another passed at age 86, Jack Sweigert died at 51 of cancer and Jim Irwin died of heart disease at 61 (he had a heart problem during the mission.) and one died at age 69 in a traffic accident, Pete Conrad.
The rest are still alive all in their 80's with the oldest age 88 (Jim Lovell) and the youngest 80.
These guys all seem to be living into ripe old age.
You would think that someone who was even nominally intelligent would peruse the study, or at least the article about the study, before such an inane comment.
It's not talking about the 12 who walked on the moon, but the 24 who have gone beyond low-earth orbit; 8 have actually died. Again, a small sample size, but what do you think they have?
By the way, the study talks about cardiovascular disease as well as mortality, so who cares that the astronauts are living into their 80's? It's a very standard statistical technique, to test a group of similar participants that differ by, largely, one feature: deeper space missions. If cardiovascular diseases are more prevalent in this population, this isn't an indicator that something is up? The magnitude of the findings may be wrong, but certainly not the direction.
Plus, as Enoch noted, longetivity is a poor measure to refute something when these individuals are often in the best shape possible, and have been selected for their general robustness.
But carry on...
Apollo 8
Borman (88)
Anders (82)
Lovell (88)
Apollo 10
Stafford (85)
Young (85)
Cernan (82)
Apollo 11
Collins (85)
Aldrin (86)
Armstrong (82-Deceased. Complications bypass surgery)
Apollo 12
Conrad (69 MV accident)
Gordon (86)
Beean (84)
Apollo 13
Lovell (88) second trip
Sweigart (51- cancer)
Haise 82
Apollo 14
Shepard (74-Deceased)
Roosa (61-pacreatitis)
Mitchell (85-deceased)
Apollo 15
Scott (84)
Wordon (84)
Irwin (61-heart attack-had heart problems during mission)
Apollo 16
Young (85) second trip
Mattingly (80)
Duke (80)
Apollo 17
Cernan (82) second trip
Evans (56 heart attack)
Schmitt (81)
24 astronauts (3 of whom made two trips.) 2 heart attacks, 1 pancreatitis, 2 cancer, 1 accidental, 1 surgical complications of bypass surgery and one of old age. 16 are still living- all in their 80's. Oddly, the 3 guys who made two trips (who were doubly exposed) are all still alive and pushing for age 90.
So, yeah, you can claim that this was an extraordinarily healthy group- 50 years ago- but compare this list to the list of say professional athletes of the same period who were also "in the best shape possible." Don't forget that many of these astronauts were smokers as well.
You would think someone who was even nominally intelligent would ask some basic questions, but you eggheads do stick together. It seems to me a poorly controlled "study" designed to garner headlines and research dollars that you should have more brains than to try and defend.
At some point, if you are serious about studying something in space, whether it's Mars, the moon, or Alpha Centauri - and we should - you will need humans there. Rovers can't improvise and the communication delay is impractical as it is.
There have been a number of suggestions (mainly theoretical at this moment, but now being turned towards serious application) for protecting a human body during an inter-planetary flight.
Again, just because you read a headline and not the actual study means diddlyshit. Health complications don't simply mean death; they also include morbidity, which is different than mortality (I know, they sure do sound alike).
And, since the sub-groups are appropriately homogeneous (as well as the other features that a quasi-experiment brings), the small sample size no longer means that the estimates will be incorrect, but simply biased (in this case, upwards). It's why cross-country OECD studies are published in very good journals.
Again, just because you read a headline and not the actual study means diddlyshit. Health complications don't simply mean death; they also include morbidity, which is different than mortality (I know, they sure do sound alike).
Not far anything, I would think radiation has a tendency to cause cancer.
What would be more interesting and probably a better sample pool will be the ISS astronauts - who spend months in space, not the 10 days for a lunar mission. Wonder if they did a better job insulating the ISS from radiation then the tin cans that went to the moon?
Cardiovascular disease is the #1 cause of death in the US, so the percentage is not that surprising.
Why? Think about the hypothesis: space radiation is damaging the cardiovascular system, causing increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. But we know the difference between space and terrestrial radiations, and we know the effects of terrestrial radiation on the heart. The only really sensitive part of the heart is the vascular endothelium (muscle is very tolerant to very high doses of both photons and particles). There are many more sensitive structures elsewhere in the body.
So the study is proposing that the unique pariticulate radiations of space are selectively damaging the heart, causing cardiac specific morbidity and motality, without impacting other sensitive organs which are getting equally exposed. Sounds dubious to me. But of course I'm a cynic
The study is not claiming that cardiac disease is the only mechanism through which people are impacted. It's that other areas (specifically cancers) have been studied; this is one of the first studies on a prevalent condition that is easily measurable.
In fact, the hypothesis makes a lot of sense. If heart disease is being exacerbated (or caused) by deep space radiation, then it is likely that there are other areas of the body (more sensitive, in your words) that are being impacted. The low-lying fruit can expose other things.
Also, Science has been very amenable, in the recent past, to the use of quasi-experiments, as the statistical methods have become very well known, especially recently.
This study can't distinguish the two.
By the way, I don't think the journal is Science; it's Scientific Reports.
Comparisons against other astronauts limit that as an explanatory factor, as compared to other studies that looked at terrestrial comparison groups.
They suggest deep space radiation as the cause based on a second part of the paper, where they investigate the impacts of irradiation on the cardiac system of mice.
In fact, the title of the paper suggests that their mechanistic basis is only possible, and that they are not dismissing other causes.
The cumulative dosing impact can also affect the magnitude of terrestrial radiation-based therapies in life as well.
The secondary hypothesis is to test whether radiation could be a causal mechanism. They find that radiation cannot be ruled out.
That does not mean that other explanations are not warranted and they have found a causal link. They have found that radiation is still a factor that needs to be explained.
Self-selection bias
Wrong bias, anyways.
Like everybody else I get pissed about some of the ways our government spend money, but I feel like I personally have gotten an enormous return on the money invested in our space program since its inception.
These are our best and brightest working to further our understanding of the universe, our place in it, and our capacity to explore it.
There isn't much, if anything, that is more important than that.
Wrong bias, anyways.
If they died from other causes, radiation-induced organ failure, acute, sub-acute or other, they weren't included in a late effects study
This a new you. A couple hours in and you haven't insulted me yet. Have a good weekend.
Unbelievable true story on the comprehensive US history of radiation experimentation, including ghastly ethical lapses and pretty bad science
Curie and Becquerel? When was the Framingham Heart Study undertaken? 1949. In 1924, the American Heart Association was formed, largely because heart disease was unknown and little understood. Two individuals who died from other things when heart disease was little understood is prima facie evidence of the state of medicine, not the impact of radiation.
And why should I insult you anymore, when you are well aware of my perception of your abilities?
Competing events negatively impact statistical power.
Competing events negatively impact statistical power? Not always; with proper test statistics (hazard ratios, with a proper specification, will have no statistically significant decline in power with competing risks) these can be negated.
In fact, this comment won't touch the main hypothesis of the paper, and since the second hypothesis was not a question of magnitude but of potential prediction, the qualitative interpretation won't change. The magnitude is irrelevant.
"Competing Risk of Death: An Important Consideration in Studies of Older Adults"
"Robust Joint Modeling of Longitudinal Measurements and Competing Risks Failure Time Data".
You can say whatever you want about me. I don't care. I pursue these discussion for fun. Part of which is watching you do anything you can to be "right".
I'm glad I'm a source of entertainment for you. Perhaps you can learn nuance, rather than absolutism as well? Osmosis, or something like that.