This was done by hand and it took me all of 4 minutes and 30 seconds, on my phone - yes I timed that. Writing the alt text took longer.
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
2 points (58.3% liked)
Friendly Carnivore
102 readers
20 users here now
Carnivore
The ultimate, zero carb, elimination diet
Meat Heals.
We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.
Keep being AWESOME
We welcome engaged, polite, and logical debates and questions of any type
Purpose
- lifestyle
- food
- Science
- problems
- Recipes
- Sustainability
- Regenerative lifestyle
Rules
- Be nice
- Stay on topic
- Don't farm rage
- Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
- No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you
- No LLM generated posts . Don't represent machine output as your own, and don't use machines to burn human response time.
Other terms: LCHF Carnivore, Keto Carnivore, Ketogenic Carnivore, Low Carb Carnivore, Zero Carb Carnivore, Animal Based Diet, Animal Sourced Foods
Meta
If you need to block this community and the UI won't let you, go to settings -> blocks you can add it.
[Meta] Moderation Policy for Niche Communities
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Its good, I'll grant you!
I was just trying to represent Sir Bradford Hill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Bradford_Hill
You don't need to use his face, just write his name on the character. The likeness adds nothing. There's just no reason to use the plagiarism machine for this.
What's HR= 1.12 for those of us out of the loop?
HR is hazard ratio, a term often used in observational epidemiology to express event hazard of the variable. The core problems is these studies are not tightly controlled, have innumerable confounders, and 1.12 means a 12% increased relative risk (not absolute risk)... which is so low it might as well be noise. This is a useful tool in the scientific process to generate hypotheses to plan further interventional experiments with, but it cannot establish cause and effect. However, lots of people REALLY REALLY REALLY want to use such data to make claims of cause and effect.
Most nutritional papers are exactly this. Dr Bradford himself, the main who came up with the smoking->cancer link and wrote the definitive criteria for observational data, even indicated a hazard ratio less then 2 (so 200%) isn't meaningful.
MD Ede explains this so much better then I can https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/full-article/epidemiological-studies
Update - Here is probably one of the best published illustrations of this weakness - https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.047142 - Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review
Thanks! I actually used to teach stats - at least for awhile 😆. I just came across the meme and that didn't click for an association.
That is a great explanation by the way. More coherent than I think I could manage.
Cigarette smoking has a hazard ratio of 7 (700%) for lung cancer, for comparison.
Oh gawd the dead AI eyes and the forced averaging of facial features, fucking scary