EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3605
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 14 2016 08:38 IgnE wrote: www.thelancet.com Article that talks about the lack of reproducibility in biomedical research. It's a problem that suffuses the entire field and erodes the distinction between "alternative medicine" and "medicine." Putting a 5-sigma rule on medicine would pretty much kill the field too. 5 sigma is an insanely high standard i think that he's referring to the profusion of a lot of shitty research in lower-tier journals. publish or perish is pretty real. however stuff published in reputable journals like the lancet, science, PNAS, etc are gonna be pretty solid for the most part | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On April 14 2016 08:34 ticklishmusic wrote: sure, but ampicillin is fractions of a penny for a dose because its easily mass produced at a high purity. it's also easy to control the dosage, etc. if it made sense to use oregano oil as an antibiotic over ampicillin we would totally do so maybe there's some niche cases where someone has a bad reaction to ampicillin and all beta lactams so something like oregano oil is an option,but that's gonna be insanely rare. i did notice that MRSA responded about the same to both though, but MRSA is a special case of a resistant strain i think for those interested in plant based medicine i recommend tales of a shaman's apprentice. not bad reading. from an amazon review: I [have] two basic criticisms of this book: (1) The title is misleading. There was no apprenticeship involved - Plotkin learnt no ceremonies and no cures. He is not a shaman by any stretch of imagination. (2) He is one of the hundreds of ethnobotanists who case the Amazon in search of clinically active plants; these people are no bleeding hearts - they do it for pharmaceutical industry, which generally pays a pittance to the indigenous people from whom the knowledge was taken. Plotkin himself was engaged with a such a company, called aptly enough, Shaman Pharmaceuticals. so its more about the modern pharmaceutical industry's current approach to ground-level discovery than about traditional approaches to plant medicine, i gather? or is this review off | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On April 14 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote: 5 sigma is an insanely high standard i think that he's referring to the profusion of a lot of shitty research in lower-tier journals. publish or perish is pretty real. however stuff published in reputable journals like the lancet, science, PNAS, etc are gonna be pretty solid for the most part 5-sigma in medicine? Every doctor is a scientist who is making educated guesses that the drugs they prescribe will help you. They ask about allergies, but they can't know. They don't have the information. Any prescribed treatment could be disastrous or have nothing to do with the observed symptoms. 5-sigma reliability is preposterous. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 14 2016 08:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: from an amazon review: so its more about the modern pharmaceutical industry's current approach to ground-level discovery than about traditional approaches to plant medicine, i gather? or is this review off the author is pretty legit, he's not a pharma shill or anything the review is off from what i remember-- the author makes a plea for researchers to do ground-level discovery and take traditional knowledge into account but it's not solely about that http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-19/books/bk-3302_1_mark-plotkin here's an LA times article about it | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's fairly important to note that criticism of pseudoscience is most active within a field than externally. just in terms of economics there's been a lot of methodological discussion about the limitations of Randomized Controlled Trials. most of the prized economic research of the last century has been methodological innovations, with each claiming some advantage in explanatory power. i'd say you need to study it seriously to make effective criticisms. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
A hand with little fingers coming out of a stem. Like, little. Look at my hands. They’re fine. Nobody other than Graydon Carter years ago used to use that. My hands are normal hands. During a debate, he was losing, and he said, “Oh, he has small hands and therefore, you know what that means.” This was not me. This was Rubio that said, “He has small hands and you know what that means.” Okay? So, he started it. So, what I said a couple of days later … and what happened is I was on line shaking hands with supporters, and one of supporters got up and he said, “Mr. Trump, you have strong hands. You have good-sized hands.” And then another one would say, “You have great hands, Mr. Trump, I had no idea.” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “I thought you were like deformed, and I thought you had small hands.” I had fifty people … Is that a correct statement? I mean people were writing, “How are Mr. Trump’s hands?” My hands are fine. You know, my hands are normal. Slightly large, actually. In fact, I buy a slightly smaller than large glove, okay? No, but I did this because everybody was saying to me, “Oh, your hands are very nice. They are normal.” So Rubio, in a debate, said, because he had nothing else to say … now I was hitting him pretty hard. He wanted to do his Don Rickles stuff and it didn’t work out. Obviously, it didn’t work too well. But one of the things he said was “He has small hands and therefore, you know what that means, he has small something else.” You can look it up. I didn’t say it. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 14 2016 08:44 CannonsNCarriers wrote: 5-sigma in medicine? Every doctor is a scientist who is making educated guesses that the drugs they prescribe will help you. They ask about allergies, but they can't know. They don't have the information. Any prescribed treatment could be disastrous or have nothing to do with the observed symptoms. 5-sigma reliability is preposterous. i mean for research where you'd formally calculate statistical significance. i don't mean a doctor who says you have cancer and a 10% chance of survival or w/e | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On April 14 2016 08:47 ticklishmusic wrote: the author is pretty legit, he's not a pharma shill or anything the review is off from what i remember-- the author makes a plea for researchers to do ground-level discovery and take traditional knowledge into account but it's not solely about that http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-19/books/bk-3302_1_mark-plotkin here's an LA times article about it ty this is a nice book review sometimes i like reading book reviews as much as reading books | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 14 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote: 5 sigma is an insanely high standard i think that he's referring to the profusion of a lot of shitty research in lower-tier journals. publish or perish is pretty real. however stuff published in reputable journals like the lancet, science, PNAS, etc are gonna be pretty solid for the most part nah it's not limited to "lower-tier journals." it's a problem that goes to the top: www.nature.com www.nature.com Unfortunately, basic biomedical research(a) has a reproducibility problem, now widely acknowledged after systematic analyses by two biotechnology companies revealed that major findings in published papers could be reproduced for less than a quarter of the papers reviewed. One study examined 67 articles and the authors were able to replicate the results of only 25% of the studies.1 While the reproducible results were robust – that is, they were sustained using a variety of tests – the results from the other 75% of studies could not be reproduced even when the methods outlined in the original papers were replicated exactly. In the other study, when a result could not be reproduced, the lab that conducted the original experiment was consulted about their methods and, in some cases, asked to repeat the experiment themselves.2 Even with this outreach to the original researchers, the major findings of just 10% of the 53 papers analyzed could be reproduced. In both studies, reproducibility did not correlate with the quality or rank of the journal that published the research.(b) Reproducibility problems were identified even in top journals like Nature, Science, and Cell, which tend to publish groundbreaking studies and have special clout within the scientific community. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
Indigenous people are usually deeply pessimistic about the future of their own knowledge. It was, they believe, given to them at the beginning of time, and in each generation some of it is lost. As cultural colonization moves into its final phase, the young have been reluctant to learn from their elders. They have preferred to imitate the strangers who have appeared among them. funny how this strain of thought appears in almost every culture (obviously you can go looking for exceptions...) kinda saddening, personally, but i know this type of thinking can preserve certain things of value book review also goes on to talk about the ways in which discovery/research can impact the native practitioners of traditional medicine itself, interacting culturally and geopolitically, which is interesting to think about as well | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 14 2016 08:52 IgnE wrote: nah it's not limited to "lower-tier journals." it's a problem that goes to the top: www.nature.com www.nature.com ugh drug stuff is a whole different ball game from basic research (which is where i sit, or sat) for starters, we need to have all the results released from trials not just favorable ones and buff the NIH funding to validate results and provide a cushion for researchers so they aren't pay for performance so much On April 14 2016 08:56 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: from the LA times review funny how this strain of thought appears in almost every culture (obviously you can go looking for exceptions...) kinda saddening, personally, but i know this type of thinking can preserve certain things of value this is what happens with cooking. my grandma knows how to make a huge amount of stuff, my mom knows how to make a decent amount, and i can boil water. well, i can do more than that but a lot of culinary knowledge is lost from generation to generation, quite sad really. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 14 2016 09:00 IgnE wrote: can you define "basic research"? in vitro for the most part a little bit of mice and primates at most maybe there is a problem with reproducibility here as well, but i'm not so much aware of it | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
medical stuff i dont know that much about but there is a fair bunch that is at the edge of signal/noise and this sensitivity to particular study conditions (lack of reproducibility) is well acknowledged. however, this also means you should take similar studies and see the result in aggregate, and literature review of this sort is really the level at which confidence is generated, not just individual studies | ||
| ||
