Comments:The Lancet study suggests inactivity now as deadly as smoking
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Comments on this page were originally made using the LiquidThreads extension, which is no longer supported. It has since been exported to wikitext, but the export process was not perfect so comments may appear slightly oddly.
Comments from feedback form - "Missing key parts of the study..."
Missing key parts of the study (subjects, number of subjects, control group, etc.). Also, it takes a very biased point of view (perhaps by not providing key parts of the study). 67.109.191.254 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies if this is not in the correct place and/or format. Was there a link to the actual subject of the article? I was aunable to see a link that allowed me to even review the "key parts" mentioned above. 124.168.123.152 (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Published in The Lancet, which you generally have to buy access to. Sorry 'bout that, it's the only way many of these publications can keep afloat. Brian McNeil / talk 17:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments from feedback form - "A little bit misleading title ..."
A little bit misleading title and providing more info would be nice as well if it was possible to expand it a lil'? Otherwise it was quite good to read. 217.194.70.226 (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)