Reform is a party that says things that appeal to racists, fields racist candidates, fawns over racist world leaders, made a convicted racist guest of honour at their conference, and whose leader refuses to outright deny having racially abused people.

If only there were a word for such a party.

You intervene by randomising and when you are estimating a relative effect it matter not whether it is A/B or B/A. But, what I meant was that nobody would reasonably interpret this trial to mean that a non-coffee drinker taking up coffee drinking would reduce risk of AF.

Fighting talk

Who is foolish enough to interpret the results of this trial in this way?

That's what a randomized trial tells you.

Depends on whether you think something not happening that otherwise would counts as having an effect.

This isn’t institutional capture. It’s a parallel epistemic system built outside medicine, using influencer dynamics, curated anecdotes, and spiritualised autonomy to replace verification, deliberation, and accountability.

If you are a coffee drinker continuing to drink coffee is protective or stopping drinking coffee is an increased risk. Is the claim anything other than that?

Who cares whether you compare A with B or B with A?

Almost certainly 😜

Aren't you supposed to go into the office and not hang out in the local restaurants?

I like the sound of the pint.