I have no desire to derail the thread but find your response patronising in the extreme.
Indeed I don't think we that far apart in our understanding of the limitations of science, the process of which I fully understand. I would have hoped that the context of my response indicated that I am in no way seeking unequivocal truth - merely pointing out that I very much doubt it exists.
Scientists or non-scientists, all opinions are welccome and valid here.
I understand this is difficult to understand for non-scientists, so let me try to explain. Whenever an interesting topic arises, scientists gather data, make quantitative analysis and compare this to a possible hypothesis. The terms model or theory are also used. When a model does not agree with the data it is discarded. Scientists then write up their study and submit it to a journal and/or arxiv where it will be peer reviewed. That means other scientists who are also specialists in the area read the paper very critically and pose difficult questions, i.e. scientists argue. Only if these questions are answered to the satisfaction of the reviewers the paper will be accepted by a legit journal. At the end of this scientific process wrong claims will be ruled out.
I agree that all opinions are welcome, but as a scientist, I want to be able to point out when an opinion is clearly wrong.
@bulkbiker Science is not easy.I'm afraid you have a rather naive perception of what happens in "science" these days. And what happens in "legit" journals
Peer review seems to be more a case of getting your mates to check your homework and then publish whatever.
or worse paying a journal to publish which is what Elsevier seem to do.
Recent papers re COVID and Hydroxychloroquine in bothe the Lancet and the NEJM have shown just how dreadfully flawed the scientific process of publication now is.
The recent papers, you refer to are actually good illustration of how science works. If, as many expect, their claims were overstated/unsubstantiated/ wrong then other scientists will not be able to reproduce their results and these will be discarded.
"If you are a fat type 2 diabetic get your eating under control." I'm astounded by this comment.You also need to identify/highlight than anyone with a BMI over 26 who is therefore clinically obese is much more likely to experience a poor outcome. The message should be if you are fat, eat less, move more. This message has been going out for years now, but is not being taken seriously. If you are a fat type 2 diabetic get your eating under control.
It's a pity then that you were not about when Ancel Keys was proving with science how bad fat is while destroying John Yudkin's reputation and career you maybe could have stepped in to settle the vehement disagreement between those two eminent scientists.
I was similar although it took approx 40 years for my Thyroid to sort itself out and I have been on Thyroxine for 7 years. After my body nearly shut down in my late teens when I went on a very low calorie diet (similar to the Newcastle diet) an endocrinologist told me that I was one of his few patients who could truly blame their metabolism for their weight problems."If you are a fat type 2 diabetic get your eating under control." I'm astounded by this comment.
That was me. It's taken me the best part of 10 years to get my thyroid hormones under control. Without the thyroid hormones being optimal I can't lose weight even in a calorie deficit. Now my thyroid hormones are optimal I have been able to lose weight and put my diabetes into remission.
Please be more thoughtful with regards to these sort of comments as many of us struggle for years with an ongoing battle which really isn't just about "getting eating under control".
They were lies based on falsified evidence it seems yet passed the peer review stage.
Other trials were stopped on the back of these "studies" maybe leading directly to excess deaths..
What should us informed laypeople think of scientists if this is how they publish?
It still is the case.. there is no big record book of studies.. the ones that are published are 90% of the time supportive of what the trial was looking at otherwise they simply don't get published.It used to be that negative results were not reported thus clearly leading to an overestimate of how well a medication will work.
Hard when your salary depends on it though.Scientists also try to prevent having their own opinions sub-consciously influence their results
Alas, it has been observed that on occasions , when the model / theory / hypothesis are not in agreement with data, some data are discarded.When scientists argue then this is progress!!!
Whenever an interesting topic arises, scientists gather data, make quantitative analysis and compare this to a possible hypothesis. The terms model or theory are also used. When a model does not agree with the data it is discarded. Scientists then write up their study and submit it to a journal and/or arxiv where it will be peer reviewed. That means other scientists who are also specialists in the area read the paper very critically and pose difficult questions, i.e. scientists argue.
The WHO has an international Clinical Trials Registration Platform, see https://www.who.int/ictrp/results/jointstatement/en/.It still is the case.. there is no big record book of studies.. the ones that are published are 90% of the time supportive of what the trial was looking at otherwise they simply don't get published
All scientists working for a pharmaceutical company would dispute this. In order to prevent any bias it is very important that there are clear rules, e.g. on disclosure, and a trials registration platform.Hard when your salary depends on it though.
All scientists working for a pharmaceutical company would dispute this. In order to prevent any bias it is very important that there are clear rules, e.g. on disclosure, and a trials registration platform.
Don't think this is useful or helpful. Back to the old rhetoric of generalisations around diabetes. There is a very detailed study available via NHS England that looked in significant depth at covid and diabetes, its been talked about at length on this forum. Far greater and more detailed than these two lines on a video.Been wondering if I should post this as it has some information that may worry some people but at the same time I think it's a potentially important study done in South Africa about comorbidities. It's one of the videos from the wonderful Dr John Campbell. First 15 minutes or so of the vid.
This is a study from South Africa where the population, health and poverty levels are very different from the UK. Thus the actual rates on risk ratio for diabetes will also be significantly different than from the UK. In this thread I discussed studies, which are based on data from hospitals in the UK. These are directly relevant for us and are also very detailed, giving breakdowns, e.g. separate for T2 and T1. This is also stated by @Jamie HBeen wondering if I should post this as it has some information that may worry some people but at the same time I think it's a potentially important study done in South Africa about comorbidities. It's one of the videos from the wonderful Dr John Campbell. First 15 minutes or so of the vid.
Do you have a link to the SA study? I've tried to find it but with no success..This is a study from South Africa where the population, health and poverty levels are very different from the UK. Thus the actual rates on risk ratio for diabetes will also be significantly different than from the UK. In this thread I discussed studies, which are based on data from hospitals in the UK. These are directly relevant for us and are also very detailed, giving breakdowns, e.g. separate for T2 and T1. This is also stated by @Jamie H
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?