How Could a Study Conclude that Secondhand Smoke Causes Increased Blood Pressure in Children Without Controlling for Salt Intake?

first PregnancyAnd Why Didn't the Authors Conclude that Secondhand Smoke Does Not Cause Asthma in Children?It is ease not clear to me how a conceive examining the relation between paternal respiration and murder push in children could hold that there is a causal relation between the digit without controlling for (or modify considering) briny intake. It is highly probable that children of parents who respiration also hit a higher briny intake. And if that is true, then they are also going to hit higher murder pressure. Since the magnitude of the accumulated systolic push among children of smokers was rattling diminutive (only 1 mm Hg), modify a diminutive disagreement in briny intake between the groups could vindicate the observed finding.I find it mismatched that a essay would conclude, supported exclusive on a azygos cross-sectional study, that old respiration danger increases murder pressure, especially when the conceive did not manoeuvre briny intake.Furthermore, it is arduous for me to understand ground no digit recognized the difficulty with the study's assessment of asthma drug use. According to the paper, asthma drug ingest was ascertained in the study. However, the essay reports that discover of 4236 children in the study, exclusive 3 used asthma drug that could process murder push (beta-agonists or corticosteroids). This represents a equilibrium of 0.07%. That just 0.07% of 5-6 year-old children in the conceive accumulation ingest asthma medications same beta-agonists or corticosteroids is simply not believable. Did no digit notice this?Perhaps the most telling oddity with this essay is its unfortunate to hold that old respiration is not related with asthma in children. Since the essay institute no connexion between paternal respiration and immatureness asthma, ground would it not also hold that paternal respiration is not related with immatureness asthma? It appears that the essay is being rattling selective in its conclusions. Essentially, it is cherry-picking the findings that it likes, and ignoring the findings that it doesn't like.Now I do not conceive that this investigate supports the closing that there is no connexion between old respiration and asthma. I conceive a more probable account is that the conceive did not right set asthma in this population. This would vindicate the near impracticable uncovering that exclusive 0.07% of the children took asthma medication.But since the conceive authors ostensibly are overconfident in their assessment of asthma and asthma drug ingest (so such so that they are selection to hold that paternal respiration causes accumulated murder pressure), then ground aren't they selection to also hold that paternal respiration is not related with immatureness asthma?The Rest of the StoryThe rest of the story is that I notice a momentous partiality here. It rattling appears that the researchers are aiming to unification old respiration with accumulated murder pressure, kinda than to objectively investigate the relationship. They are cherry-picking from their findings and exclusive gift sideboard to the uncovering that goes along with their ostensibly pre-determined conclusion, and not to the uncovering that goes against what they ostensibly want to find.This partiality has embellish progressively manifest over the time some eld and seems specially questionable with studies on the personalty of old smoke.Pregnancy info
Article Directory