> They do literally cite in words where they got their sample data in the first two sentences of the linked article.
No, they do not. They say they used the U.K. biobank, but otherwise do not tell how they selected upon “European ancestry" in that bank.
> This, and referencing an apartheid test for ethnicity, suggests you are no longer speaking in good faith. I have already explained why this is biologically highly relevant to this case.
And I have argued why it isn't by the argument that an individual that is biologically “white” or almost fully white can culturally be considered “black”, depending on the culture, and obviously vitamin-D production cannot be assumed to care about such cultural divisions.
It has long been noted that many persons in the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly the U.S.A. that are referred to as “black” are genetically speaking effectively “white” and almost completely “of European ancestry”; — the article and those who replied to me are entirely unclear whether they are included or not in the sample.
> There is no harm in claiming this research result applies in general to people with European descent, a known problem of bias in existing data sources that is known to have an impact on the quality of medical care, and whereby you can make your own decision as to whether this might apply globally.
There is absolute harm in using vague terms of which no one exactly knows what it means.
What do you, for instance believe the actual selection of “with European ancestry" signifies here? What concrete, testable definition of “of European ancestry” was used?
> There is potential harm in claiming this research result applies globally, since you are working with highly biased data, and applying solutions that appear to work for a distinct subset of the population might work ok but also might be harmful to the other 90% of people.
Indeed there is, but there is no false dilemma here. — both can be as ridiculous as the other and in fact do not exclude each other, because the term “ancestry” is used, not “residence” which indeed implies that the result holds for persons of European descent, globally. One can be located anywhere in the world and still be “with European ancestry”.
And if they are to be found there what criteria it, if any uses to determine “with European ancestry” then I'm sure you can produce it, because I searched and couldn't.
And I find that in practice if research include a vague criterion in it's very title, it tends to come with far clearer definitions of that criterion in it's body than this.
I did find it for UK Biobank (one of several sources) earlier, quite easily, by clicking on the relevant link. I suspect that you could not find it (and did not know) only because you don't have relevant training/expertise in science/genetic research - in line with your first question in this thread.
They asked people in the UK in a digitally supported questionnaire/interview, for their ethnicity.
(Wikipedia also mentions that UK Biobank is criticised for sampling bias towards wealthy white Brits)
No, they do not. They say they used the U.K. biobank, but otherwise do not tell how they selected upon “European ancestry" in that bank.
> This, and referencing an apartheid test for ethnicity, suggests you are no longer speaking in good faith. I have already explained why this is biologically highly relevant to this case.
And I have argued why it isn't by the argument that an individual that is biologically “white” or almost fully white can culturally be considered “black”, depending on the culture, and obviously vitamin-D production cannot be assumed to care about such cultural divisions.
It has long been noted that many persons in the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly the U.S.A. that are referred to as “black” are genetically speaking effectively “white” and almost completely “of European ancestry”; — the article and those who replied to me are entirely unclear whether they are included or not in the sample.
> There is no harm in claiming this research result applies in general to people with European descent, a known problem of bias in existing data sources that is known to have an impact on the quality of medical care, and whereby you can make your own decision as to whether this might apply globally.
There is absolute harm in using vague terms of which no one exactly knows what it means.
What do you, for instance believe the actual selection of “with European ancestry" signifies here? What concrete, testable definition of “of European ancestry” was used?
> There is potential harm in claiming this research result applies globally, since you are working with highly biased data, and applying solutions that appear to work for a distinct subset of the population might work ok but also might be harmful to the other 90% of people.
Indeed there is, but there is no false dilemma here. — both can be as ridiculous as the other and in fact do not exclude each other, because the term “ancestry” is used, not “residence” which indeed implies that the result holds for persons of European descent, globally. One can be located anywhere in the world and still be “with European ancestry”.