So being willfully stupid can come at a very high price. No surprise there, and I'm unable to produce even a milligram of sympathy for those people.

'Conservatives are dying at higher rates than liberals. A new study points to mistrust in medicine'

https://www.fastcompany.com/91561329/widening-health-gap-between-liberals-and-conservatives

"Your politics could be making you ill, and conservatives are dying at significantly higher rates than liberals, according to a recent study in Nature. “2010 is the last year in which we can say fairly clearly that there is not this gap,” Elizabeth Elder, a coauthor of the study, tells Fast Company, but “By 2020 we have pretty clear evidence of a gap in which conservatives are less healthy than liberals.”

By 2016, the gap had begun to appear in biomarker measures. By 2020, it was showing up in deaths from causes such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Since then, the gap has only widened, and between 2020 and 2022, only 0.2% of “very liberal” respondents died of internal causes, compared with 1.34% of “very conservative” respondents.""

Since the release of US GOVERNMENT ODNI report of Dr. Fauci’s lies on COVID 19… and reviewing the quoted reports dates and data (highly suspect) and how much Big Pharma has been pushing the narrative…

Perhaps a review of the multiple injuries and deaths of the population that was vaccinated against those who did not receive the vaccination should be studied… it’s NOT a conservative or liberal factor… and should not be…

Ah, the rise of junk science.

This is all Quack theory / conspiracy theory, Just a GOP/Trump waste of Tax money research meaning nothing!!

15 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

This is all Quack theory / conspiracy theory, Just a GOP/Trump waste of Tax money research meaning nothing!!

What does the even mean?

1 hour ago, BLMFem said:

“By 2020 we have pretty clear evidence of a gap in which conservatives are less healthy than liberals.”

complete unprovable nonsense

14 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

complete unprovable nonsense

When I attended a sampling theory class in college, I learned that the selection process needs to be random to make a statistical inference out a population.

2 hours ago, BLMFem said:

So being willfully stupid can come at a very high price. No surprise there, and I'm unable to produce even a milligram of sympathy for those people.

'Conservatives are dying at higher rates than liberals. A new study points to mistrust in medicine'

https://www.fastcompany.com/91561329/widening-health-gap-between-liberals-and-conservatives

"Your politics could be making you ill, and conservatives are dying at significantly higher rates than liberals, according to a recent study in Nature. “2010 is the last year in which we can say fairly clearly that there is not this gap,” Elizabeth Elder, a coauthor of the study, tells Fast Company, but “By 2020 we have pretty clear evidence of a gap in which conservatives are less healthy than liberals.”

By 2016, the gap had begun to appear in biomarker measures. By 2020, it was showing up in deaths from causes such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Since then, the gap has only widened, and between 2020 and 2022, only 0.2% of “very liberal” respondents died of internal causes, compared with 1.34% of “very conservative” respondents.""

Gutted

4 hours ago, TedG said:

When I attended a sampling theory class in college, I learned that the selection process needs to be random to make a statistical inference out a population.

That's an excellent goal to have when designing a study to determine causality.

Unfortunately, the article did not include a link to the actual study.

Here is a link to the study by Elder + O'Brian:

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/articles/sn00bd63k

Please explain why you felt the need to bring that guidance into this topic. Do you feel the selection in the study that was mentioned was somehow biased?

The article contained little discussion of the study's selection criteria other than that the participants came from all 50 states.

From the referenced article:

A paper published last month analyzed individual health data from a long-term study of a large, representative sample of Americans across all 50 states.

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

complete unprovable nonsense

Where did you find the data that proves it's nonsense?

6 hours ago, Browndog said:

and reviewing the quoted reports dates and data

is this the 'dates and data' that you reviewed:

By 2016, the gap had begun to appear in biomarker measures. By 2020, it was showing up in deaths from causes such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Since then, the gap has only widened. Between 2020 and 2022, only 0.2% of “very liberal” respondents died of internal causes, compared with 1.34% of “very conservative” respondents.

From the article linked to in OP.

Did your review take long? There's not much to review.

Trump is a living example which proves

this is nonsense !

25 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Please explain why you felt the need to bring that guidance into this topic. Do you feel the selection in the study that was mentioned was somehow biased?

The paper only looks at people born between 1977 and 1982. This does not represent the entire population as a whole.

2 hours ago, TedG said:

The paper only looks at people born between 1977 and 1982. This does not represent the entire population as a whole.

It's a cohort study! 😃

Oh and it's only been published in one of Nature journals.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-026-02474-9

1 hour ago, candide said:

It's a cohort study! 😃

Oh and it's only been published in one of Nature journals.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-026-02474-9

Per the quote from the OP

'Conservatives are dying at higher rates than liberals. A new study points to mistrust in medicine'

Does this study represent the entire population?

7 minutes ago, TedG said:

Per the quote from the OP

'Conservatives are dying at higher rates than liberals. A new study points to mistrust in medicine'

Does this study represent the entire population?

No. I wonder if the op will acknowledge the fact that mental illness is more prevelant on the left.

52 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

No. I wonder if the op will acknowledge the fact that mental illness is more prevelant on the left.

What's your basis for that claim? Hopefully not a certain Danish researcher.

23 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

What's your basis for that claim? Hopefully not a certain Danish researcher.

you dispute it?

Edited June 22Jun 22 by Yagoda

4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

No. I wonder if the op will acknowledge the fact that mental illness is more prevelant on the left.

So you have data to back that up?

Rational people could conclude the exact opposite, though it's possible Trump could be an outlier, or is that outliar?

For example, Trump claimed that---at a time he was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for his failed casinos---that he stopped the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. ("7 million dead....machetes, machetes everywhere...but I stopped that"). He also claimed he discussed the Unabomber's student years with Trump's MIT professor uncle, despite the Unabomber attending Harvard and remaining a total unknown while Trump's uncle was alive. Both indicate Trump's deranged mental capacity (or mendacity). That his cult still believes everything spewing from his gaping maw, it would seem the MAGAs are the crazies

I would suspect "Conservatives", who sport bloated waistlines and do next to nothing to stay in shape, do take personal offense at research studies that indicate an increased chance of becoming worm food before their liberal peers.

Perhaps a few, who remain honest enough to assess their own physicality, might wish they had hit the gym and put down the fork and spoon a little earlier in life, as well as refraining from disparaging science. Then again, Darwin did introduce, via his work, the phrase "survival of the fittest".

Off to the gym now for me.

41 minutes ago, Wingate said:

Off to the gym now for me.

Got to get prepared for your secret cia missions huh, agent 88

The mortality rate from the Covid epidemic was 38% higher in red states than blue.

It's not a long stretch to attribute this to the rejection of masks and vaccines as initially coerced by the president. He, and his wife, were later vaccinated after catching the virus himself. A fact he tried to keep secret from his acolytes.

Evidence of these facts are all over the internet,

It appears that stupid can indeed be fixed.

11 hours ago, TedG said:

Per the quote from the OP

'Conservatives are dying at higher rates than liberals. A new study points to mistrust in medicine'

Does this study represent the entire population?

The results are valid for the cohort only. While it is enough to establish a 'theory', this theory may be disproved by other studies using different samples or methodologies.

13 hours ago, TedG said:

Per the quote from the OP

'Conservatives are dying at higher rates than liberals. A new study points to mistrust in medicine'

Does this study represent the entire population?

As a cohort study, it doesn't have to. As long as the selection criteria are applied consistently and are not biased, the resulting set of study subjects is fine. Having said that, the study's conclusion should identify the constraints in the selection criteria. The summary in the underlying study did not make the claim stated in the OP. Any fault with that statement belongs to the article authors not the study authors.

Edited June 23Jun 23 by gamb00ler