[ SECRET POST #2906 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2906 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 021 secrets from Secret Submission Post #415.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

One study means sod all anyway. You need many, peer reviewed, to even start to draw proper conclusions.

I hate how the media reports on science, with complete misunderstanding of how the process works. It's a personal bugbear.

For instance, that widely-quoted study about older womens' fertility dropping sharply, came from one study that used Victorian data. It was about historical fertility levels with a very small sample size, yet I've seen the data quoted dozens of times, scaremongering women into having kids early. As if that study had anything to say to modern women about how to plan a family.

[diet_poison]

True! And that sounds really frustrating. :/ Especially since there's plenty of science on fertility to look at. One old, badly-performed study is hardly worth looking at in the first place.