Maybe, but they are in no way comparable to the ones in the Lausanne study McCullough & Polykretis cite.
On the one hand we have athletes under 35 who suffered sudden cardiac death and who’s cases got written up in a medical journal.
On the other hand we have the goodsciencing list which includes any death of people of any age who had any tenuous connection to athletics (an announcer!) and who died from any cause (cancer, strep infection, unknown causes…) and who’s case was found on the internet by some rando and sent to the blog.
Do you think it’s an honest exercise to compare these two data sets and claim deaths of athletes are increasing?
It used to be the left that fudged data, now it’s just as prevalent on the right. Anything to push an agenda.
Maybe, but they are in no way comparable to the ones in the Lausanne study McCullough & Polykretis cite.
In what ways are the lists not comparable? For starters we know that both lists were generated by reviewing news reports.