Home | Community | Message Board

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 33 minutes
PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse * 5
    #26858572 - 08/02/20 10:28 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Most of you probably know by know that PubMed is a massive index of articles from scientific journals that appear in the The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). At face value, it seems like an excellent idea- what better way to facilitate access to scientific truths than to make all research easily searchable in one index?

I first noticed the potential dark side of PubMed when I became a nurse. Sometimes I would have patients who would second guess the treatments that doctors prescribed them on the basis of having "done their research." This made my job very difficult, because a major function of nurses is to mediate conversation between doctors and patients.

Now, I have always been a very openminded person, and I always wanted to advocate for my patients as best as I could. So I would always hear them out, look into the articles their opinions were based on, and try to see if there was anything legitimate to their protests.

Unfortunately, it nearly always turned out to be the case that the reason the patient was second guessing the doctor on the basis of having done "research" involved either
A) A misinterpretation of the article in question,
B) An article from a highly disreputable pay-to-publish journal, which unfortunately often manage to make their way into the NCBI.
C) A failure to understand the article's conclusions within the context of a broader understanding in the field.
D) A failure to understand the logistical considerations of healthcare that frequently make the treatment they think is best for them impossible.

This often put me in the uncomfortable position of having to try to patiently explain why the treatment the doctor has ordered for the patient is the best one in spite of the "research" the patient has done. The end result of this is that most of these patients develop a sense of mistrust in the medical establishment, thinking that we have some kind of nefarious agenda causing us to "ignore the research they did."

Confirmation bias has always been a problem, but with a resource like pubmed, confirmation bias becomes even more sinister, because citing a scientific journal article as the basis for their opinion gives people much greater confidence in whatever opinion they set out to confirm.

A perfect example of this phenomenon was a recently indexed article entitled 5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells, which had been printed in the pay-to-publish journal "Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents", which claims to be "peer reviewed"- but which was actually released as a "pre-print" before actually being peer reviewed. As soon as it was actually peer-reviewed, the journal withdrew the article, but much of the damage was already done. Though it is difficult to decipher as a result of the horrible grammar, it appeared to be claiming that 5g wavelengths were capable of damaging cellular DNA, allowing it to re-organize itself into coronaviruses. Here are some gems that appeared in the article, which can now still be accessed using the WayBack Machine (a problem unto itself).

Quote:

In this research, we show that 5G millimeter waves could be absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells. DNA is built from charged electrons and atoms and has an inductor-like structure.




Quote:

These waves produce some holes in liquids within the nucleus. To fill these holes, some extra hexagonal and pentagonal bases are produced. These bases could join to each other and form virus-like structures such as Coronavirus. To produce these viruses within a cell, it is necessary that the wavelength of external waves be shorter than the size of the cell. Thus 5G millimeter waves could be good candidates for applying in constructing virus-like structures such as Coronaviruses (COVID-19) within cells.




Despite the fact that the authors of the paper did not conduct any actual research, there was a "Materials and Methods" section that simply consisted of a bunch of absurdly complex math equations. The paper was filled with ridiculous schematics that were drawn in MSPaint. One simply had a picture of a skin cell with a circle around it and an arrow pointing to it that said "Antennae". It was riddled with graphs with ambiguously labeled axes.

Long story short, anyone with even a small amount of real education in these fields could see immediately that the paper was garbage. Nevertheless, people who wanted to confirm their biases that 5g radiation is somehow related to coronavirus circulated the article and their confidence in their opinion grew: "Look, the scientists agree with us."

Other common examples include people using PubMed to confirm their biases related to the use of hydroxychloroquine, homeopathic "medicines", accupuncture, reiki- many of these manage to make their way into the NCBI because the publishers simply take money from anyone who wants to publish and pretend they submitted the article for "peer review", or have it "reviewed" by other quacks.

Most armchair researchers can't even look at an article and tell you whether it's a literature review, a controlled clinical trial, or a meta-analysis. They can't tell you the difference between in vivo and in vitro research, and why that difference matters. They can't tell you what the letters in the article like "p" and "n" stand for- much less how those values are used to calculate significance and effect size. Most of them simply read the abstract and MAYBE the conclusion, see if it appears to confirm their biases, and look for a different one until they find one that does appear to.

Wanting to be well-informed is an admirable quality, but in order to properly get at the truth, it's necessary to have some humility. In the context of science, humility results from receiving background education in the field- this is when you realize how much you do not know. As you become more educated, your confidence begins to fade.

If you take away nothing else from this post, please understand this: medical personnel want the best for people who are sick. In the USA, we have to navigate through the logistics of health insurance and a highly unregulated profit-driven pharmaceutical industry. But we do want the best for you. We will frequently go above and beyond to help you access the resources you need to be treated, despite lack of resources or insurance. Many of us have taken paycuts during this pandemic specifically because the hospitals are losing money, not making it.

If you want to know the truth about a subject, but you lack significant education in that subject, please have the humility to use people you trust and know to be educated in that subject as a resource. When they suggest that your interpretation is incorrect, don't take it personally. They're not trying to hurt your feelings. Avail yourself of the help they offer you.


Edited by morrowasted (08/02/20 10:38 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblebodhisattaMDiscordReddit
Smurf real estate agent
 User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted] * 1
    #26858585 - 08/02/20 10:38 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Andrew wakefield and autism too. Anyone who read his paper could see that it was junk unless they were a moron.


--------------------
:whyyy:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsi
TOAST N' JAM
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613 Flag
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
    #26858591 - 08/02/20 10:44 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

I've found that medical professionals generally respond positively to attempts to better understand the underlying science behind something. But I recognize the limitations of my high school level education in biology, supplemented with some later self-study. As you say, humility is required.


Better PubMed than Youtube though I will say.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 33 minutes
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: psi]
    #26858605 - 08/02/20 10:52 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

psi said:



Better PubMed than Youtube though I will say.


I am not so certain. I feel like people who use pubmed convince themselves their opinions are just as valid as those of any other scientist, because they are utilizing the same resource that a scientist would use to find information. Then again, many people do seem to be very confident in garbage opinions they got from watching youtube. Maybe it is just that people using pubmed to engage in confirmation bias fancy themselves educated, whereas casual youtube consumers dont concern themselves with maintaining that kind of self perception. In any case, both can be problematic in the same way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: psi] * 1
    #26858608 - 08/02/20 10:53 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Dude, you're not even a doctor.

Are you some sore of scientists?

Some ego on you to discredit work of those who stood before you.

You stand on giants and act like you're our community doctor or some shit.

How long have you been in a medical profession?


--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF

This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited,  but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders

https://www.icandecide.org/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: HamHead] * 3
    #26858613 - 08/02/20 10:56 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

HamHeads mad  :smilingpuppy:


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #26858614 - 08/02/20 10:59 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Nah, a little upset science is being burned in favor of mask and vaccines.


--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF

This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited,  but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders

https://www.icandecide.org/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsi
TOAST N' JAM
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613 Flag
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
    #26858617 - 08/02/20 11:01 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

morrowasted said:
Quote:

psi said:



Better PubMed than Youtube though I will say.


I am not so certain. I feel like people who use pubmed convince themselves their opinions are just as valid as those of any other scientist, because they are utilizing the same resource that a scientist would use to find information. Then again, many people do seem to be very confident in garbage opinions they got from watching youtube. Maybe it is just that people using pubmed to engage in confirmation bias fancy themselves educated, whereas casual youtube consumers dont concern themselves with maintaining that kind of self perception. In any case, both can be problematic in the same way.



I think people who look to PubMed at least have a better sense of where legit scientific info is likely to be found. The people who believe that "research" is measured in hours of Youtube viewing are more of a lost cause IMO.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineendtimes
Stranger

Registered: 06/14/20
Posts: 62
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: HamHead] * 3
    #26858621 - 08/02/20 11:02 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

HamHead said:
Nah, a little upset science is being burned in favor of mask and vaccines.



It’s not being burned. Masks and vaccines are supported by science.

The problem with PubMed is that even the bad studies are on there and people who use it don’t know how to interpret research papers. I think the concerns presented are valid.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 29 minutes, 35 seconds
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: HamHead] * 2
    #26858633 - 08/02/20 11:09 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Scientific papers often require skilled reading comprehension. There’s a reason why reading comprehension skills account for such a large part of the MCATS. It is very easy to misinterpret what the author is saying if you’re not carefully parsing the words. People without scientific training are not well equipped to “educate themselves” through personal examinations of medical, sociological and other scientific literature


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 33 minutes
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: HamHead]
    #26858636 - 08/02/20 11:10 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

HamHead said:
Dude, you're not even a doctor.

Are you some sore of scientists?

Some ego on you to discredit work of those who stood before you.

You stand on giants and act like you're our community doctor or some shit.

How long have you been in a medical profession?




Control group scores: 82, 90, 95, 78, 98

Experimental group scores: 86, 99, 95, 85, 93


What is the effect size as expressed by cohens D?

This should take you no more than 4 or 5 minutes to calculate.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: endtimes]
    #26858638 - 08/02/20 11:11 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

So, who's to say that those studies on mask and vaccines are good or bad?


--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF

This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited,  but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders

https://www.icandecide.org/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
    #26858641 - 08/02/20 11:12 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

morrowasted said:
Quote:

HamHead said:
Dude, you're not even a doctor.

Are you some sore of scientists?

Some ego on you to discredit work of those who stood before you.

You stand on giants and act like you're our community doctor or some shit.

How long have you been in a medical profession?




Control group scores: 82, 90, 95, 78, 98

Experimental group scores: 86, 99, 95, 85, 93


What is the effect size as expressed by cohens D?

This should take you no more than 4 or 5 minutes to calculate.




7.

:notyou:


--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF

This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited,  but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders

https://www.icandecide.org/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 33 minutes
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: psi]
    #26858644 - 08/02/20 11:13 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Fair enough psi, but just look at hamhead. You frequently cites pubmed but his cause seems just as lost as any, if not more so. It is also more dangerous because other uneducated people are more likely to take him seriously than to take someone posting youtube videos seriously


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
    #26858646 - 08/02/20 11:15 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

I agree.

People think being "peer-reviewed" is the end-all-be-all.  Even within this research, the strength of data varies considerably.  Recently, observational, cross sectional studies are being presented as absolute fact, and individuals don't understand their limitations.

In a separate thread here, someone didn't know what a placebo was.  Think about that for a moment...


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 33 minutes
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: HamHead]
    #26858652 - 08/02/20 11:19 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

HamHead said:

7.

:notyou:


im tied up with family activites so I can't verify this atm but there is no way you legitimately calculated the real answer that quickly, the only way you might have is using a google effect size calculator, which i just realized exists. Your lack of shame at being intentionally intellectually dishonest is very sad. Calculating the d from those values is a multi step process involving the calcuation of mean and standard deviation. There is simply no way you did all of that that in 2 minutes


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsi
TOAST N' JAM
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613 Flag
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
    #26858655 - 08/02/20 11:21 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Yeah I definitely see the pitfalls, especially you have a preconceived idea of a conclusion you want to find in the literature.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 33 minutes
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: badchad]
    #26858656 - 08/02/20 11:21 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

badchad said:
I agree.

People think being "peer-reviewed" is the end-all-be-all.  Even within this research, the strength of data varies considerably.  Recently, observational, cross sectional studies are being presented as absolute fact, and individuals don't understand their limitations.

In a separate thread here, someone didn't know what a placebo was.  Think about that for a moment...


oh i know exactly which thread you are talking about- it is where hamhead made it clear he didnt even know what normal saline is by claiming it doesnt count as a placebo


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsi
TOAST N' JAM
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613 Flag
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
    #26858660 - 08/02/20 11:23 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

I thought it was the other way around, he would only accept an example where the placebo was saline.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: psi]
    #26858676 - 08/02/20 11:30 AM (3 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

psi said:
I thought it was the other way around, he would only accept an example where the placebo was saline.




It was this.  There are several varieties of commercial saline solutions.  The bigger issue though, is that anything inactive can serve as a placebo.  The reality is if you aren't knowledgeable on what a "placebo" is, you probably shouldn't be discussing science.  At all.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Scientists find Extraterrestrial genes in Human DNA
( 1 2 all )
Rahie 7,258 37 01/17/07 12:11 PM
by trippindad82
* Running on Microbes (an AMAZING article, PLEASE READ) Psilocybeingzz 1,411 5 02/26/07 09:56 PM
by trippindad82
* "I'm a scientist and I believe in God".....
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
mikeytro 8,303 88 04/06/07 11:48 PM
by Silversoul
* Local newspaper article on mushrooms Slooch 1,301 8 08/01/06 12:55 PM
by mjshroomer
* curly/wavy hair
( 1 2 3 all )
Cannabischarlie 5,188 50 09/30/08 07:07 AM
by Cepheus
* Scientist theorize world conciousness
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Irijes 5,197 67 02/16/05 06:21 PM
by lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
* Excellent Article on Mushrooms on front page of CNN.com!
( 1 2 all )
OneMoreRobot3021 4,866 34 11/07/06 07:58 PM
by HB
* Pot helps prevent alzheimers, article i found on drudge
( 1 2 3 all )
Shnezbit 5,130 42 10/07/06 09:37 PM
by Prisoner#1

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
507 topic views. 2 members, 38 guests and 24 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.