|
HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker



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]
#26858680 - 08/02/20 11:32 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
A placebo is an inert solution.
What it is not is a saline solution with added adjuvants.
When a placebo is used in vaccine trials, it is common knowledge that there will be some reactions at injection site at least. If a placebo, inert, saline solution with no activity is given and no reaction happens, people are likely to conclude that they recieved a placebo.
In order to have a placebo cause an reaction, chemicals are added such as aluminium adjuvants, which cross bbb (blood brain barriers).
And, OMG, Pubmed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21871940/
"Aluminium-based adjuvants should not be used as placebos in clinical trials"Quote:
morrowasted said:
Quote:
HamHead said:
7.

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

Oh shit, you thought I did math?

7 is my go to guess number.
I used to deal craps.
-------------------- 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/
|
Psicomb



Registered: 01/13/18
Posts: 4,635
Loc: the womb
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted] 1
#26858682 - 08/02/20 11:33 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Thank you for this post man. In the age of internet the loudest ones are often the ones who are followed, not the smartest. I'm glad to see this post being loud AND smart.
--------------------
When we constantly pull things apart trying to see how it works, we may end up with only an understanding of how to destroy something - nick sand
|
endtimes
Stranger

Registered: 06/14/20
Posts: 62
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
#26858686 - 08/02/20 11:34 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
My question would be then why do you engage him when you can verify they are less than reputable, would that not contribute to lending him undue legitimacy which is as you are concerned about?
I mean peer review is not iron clad, but science shows us nothing is. All we have is evidence, not proof (I’m told there is a difference) and any moment what we have can be overturned. We are fallible creatures and the best we can do is to be less wrong
|
spirit_shadow
Feature not a bug



Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 25,665
Last seen: 43 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: endtimes]
#26858716 - 08/02/20 11:46 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Shiiiiit if I was a doc I'd say sure ok, and let them treat themselves(in that context) and when they come back I'll ask them if they feel any better and thank them for the free medical research
-------------------- ERROR 418 IM A TEAPOT.....(this account is automated, all posts related to illegal activities or advice thereof are strictly from numerous online sites and are for informational purposes only)- Circa 2011 Ban lotto
|
HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker



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: spirit_shadow]
#26858739 - 08/02/20 11:57 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/409037702805561/posts/1175134802862510/
Del Bigtree understands placebo.
His channel, The Highwire, was recently pulled from YouTube.
He runs a nonprofit.
https://www.icandecide.org/
-------------------- 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/
|
endtimes
Stranger

Registered: 06/14/20
Posts: 62
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: HamHead] 2
#26858754 - 08/02/20 12:06 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
That nonprofit seems hella sketchy
|
foragedfungus



Registered: 09/30/13
Posts: 1,849
Loc: out there
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted] 1
#26858796 - 08/02/20 12:35 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said: 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?
...........
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.
That was wordy and complicated, too much technical jargon. I just read the first and last paragraphs.
So you're saying that PubMed and ncbi are great resource for us lay-people to have the complicated science explained by trusted, educated professionals?
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 24 minutes
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: endtimes]
#26858804 - 08/02/20 12:38 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The placebo must share enough macroscopic properties that both the patient and the doctor cannot tell the difference visually
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker



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: koods]
#26858811 - 08/02/20 12:41 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: The placebo must share enough macroscopic properties that both the patient and the doctor cannot tell the difference visually
A placebo is an inert, sugar pill or saline solution with no additives.
Anything else should not be classified as a placebo.
-------------------- 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/
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: foragedfungus]
#26858816 - 08/02/20 12:43 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
foragedfungus said:
So you're saying that PubMed and ncbi are great resource for us lay-people to have the complicated science explained by trusted, educated professionals?
Generally, its the opposite. Pubmed isn't intended for lay people. It's what professionals use. Laypeople can be prone to misinterpretation of results.
-------------------- ...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
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: HamHead]
#26858826 - 08/02/20 12:48 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Above you explained the potential disadvantages to that though (absence of expected side effects tipping the patient or researcher off that the placebo was given, and sabotaging the double blind thing). It would seem there are pros and cons to both approaches.
The definition you gave may be the one you prefer, but from your own evidence it would seem actual scientists use the word placebo in a broader way.
|
foragedfungus



Registered: 09/30/13
Posts: 1,849
Loc: out there
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: badchad] 2
#26858834 - 08/02/20 12:51 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I thought my trolling was obvious.
Only reading the first and last paragraph of the OP (as he claims folks do with papers on pubmed), misinterpreting his words, and coming to a conclusion that was the exact opposite of what he intended.
|
HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker



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]
#26858870 - 08/02/20 01:06 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psi said: Above you explained the potential disadvantages to that though (absence of expected side effects tipping the patient or researcher off that the placebo was given, and sabotaging the double blind thing). It would seem there are pros and cons to both approaches.
The definition you gave may be the one you prefer, but from your own evidence it would seem actual scientists use the word placebo in a broader way.
Yes, very broad, as in testing vaccines against other vaccines, as placebo.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157320/
3. General ethical considerations Given the high burden of infectious diseases, especially in LMICs, there is an ethical imperative to develop and test new vaccines. The recommendations from the panel therefore aim to facilitate the conduct of vaccine research that is ethical, scientifically valid, and designed to meet important public health needs.
While this paper focuses specifically on the use of placebo controls, similar considerations apply to open designs in which a placebo is not used, but an unvaccinated control group is included. The following recommendations assume that other common requirements for ethical research are respected [4,5]. In particular: Investigators and sponsors consult and collaborate with local stakeholders in all phases of the research; research participants, or their legal representatives, give voluntary and informed consent to study participation; participants are free to withdraw from research at any time, for any reason, without penalty; the research addresses an important health problem and is responsive to local health needs; the study design used minimizes risks and enhances potential clinical benefits for participants; the benefits and burdens of the research are justly distributed; and sponsors, in consultation with national or local authorities, make provisions to ensure reasonable post-trial access to interventions proven most efficacious to the population from which the research participants were drawn.
4. Ethical framework for placebo use in vaccine trials To navigate the difficult ethical terrain of using placebo controls in vaccine trials, it is helpful to identify the conditions under which placebo use is clearly acceptable and clearly unacceptable. The following considerations assume that placebo interventions (e.g. subcutaneous injections of saline solution) themselves pose negligible risks.
Placebo use in vaccine trials is clearly acceptable when (a) no efficacious and safe vaccine exists and (b) the vaccine under consideration is intended to benefit the population in which the vaccine is to be tested. In this situation, a placebo-controlled trial addresses the locally relevant question regarding the extent to which the new vaccine is better than nothing, and participants in the placebo arm of the trial are not deprived of the clinical benefits of an existing efficacious vaccine.
Placebo use in vaccine trials is clearly unacceptable when (a) a highly efficacious and safe vaccine exists and is currently accessible in the public health system of the country in which the trial is planned and (b) the risks to participants of delaying or foregoing the available vaccine cannot be adequately minimized or mitigated (e.g. by providing counselling and education on behavioural disease prevention strategies, or ensuring adequate treatment for the condition under study to prevent serious harm). In this situation, a placebo-controlled trial would not address a question that is relevant in the local context, namely how the new vaccine compares to the one that is currently in use, and participants would be exposed to unacceptable levels of risk from delaying or foregoing a safe and effective vaccine that is accessible through the public health system.
Between these two poles, the use of placebo controls in vaccine trials may be justified even when an efficacious vaccine exists, provided the risk-benefit profile of the trial is acceptable. This applies to situations where the existing vaccine is available through the local public health system, as well as to situations where the existing vaccine is not available locally, or it is only available on the private market. Specifically, the risk-benefit profile of a placebo-controlled vaccine trial may be acceptable when (1) the study question cannot be answered with an active-controlled trial design; and (2) the risks of delaying or foregoing an existing efficacious vaccine are adequately minimized or mitigated; and (3) the use of a placebo control is justified by the potential public health or social value of the research; and (4) the research is responsive to local health needs. Importantly, and contrary to many of the existing ethical guidelines on placebo use [4,5,7,9], the acceptable risks of withholding or delaying administration of an existing vaccine in the placebo arm of vaccine trials may be greater than minimal when the above conditions are met.
-------------------- 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/
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: HamHead]
#26858912 - 08/02/20 01:21 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'm confused about why you chose those portions to underline. Don't see them referring anywhere to real working vaccines as placebos. And in the case of Covid-19, it is not the case (or at least has not been demonstrated yet) that a highly efficacious and safe vaccine already exists. Why the underlining on the portions about this?
|
feevers


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc:
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
#26858917 - 08/02/20 01:24 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Understanding how to analyze research is something that takes time and study to do properly. A whole lot of published research is junk, both intentionally biased, rushed to pad publication numbers, bought and paid for, unintentionally low-quality from amateur researchers, etc. There's a reason most research methods courses in college focus roughly 75% of the curriculum on critically analysing and picking research articles apart, and there's a very thorough and structured way of doing so that is not a quick or easy process.
The knowledge gained from these courses also comes from doing your own studies, typically meta-analysis' or scoping reviews, to get intimately familiar with the structure of papers, and understand just how easy bias and confounding variables can slip in unintentionally, when a professor or peer reviewer picks you apart. There's also a real need for an understanding of the statistics involved, which is not something intuitive and also takes some study.
Arguing over research papers with someone not trained to understand them is pretty futile, it's been this way forever. You can search "studies show ...." and fill in any wonky thought you'd like, and you'll find your news source stating that drinking wine helps you build muscle or nicotine cures the cornavirus or whatever. It's all either the media horribly misinterpreting the data or often even accurately reporting very flawed or incomplete data. Any correlation is a golden ticket to bias confirmation or to clicks and ad revenue.
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
#26858982 - 08/02/20 01:49 PM (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.
Control group sd = 8.473488066 Exp group sd = 5.983310121
Cohen's d = (91.6 - 88.6) ⁄ 7.334848 = 0.409006.
Glass's delta = (91.6 - 88.6) ⁄ 8.473488 = 0.354045.
Hedges' g = (91.6 - 88.6) ⁄ 7.334848 = 0.4090
--------------------
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper


Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 3 days, 21 hours
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: feevers]
#26858991 - 08/02/20 01:52 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
That was wordy and complicated, too much technical jargon. I just read the first and last paragraphs.
So you're saying that PubMed and ncbi are great resource for us lay-people to have the complicated science explained by trusted, educated professionals?

Ps hamhead, your answer was way off.
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted]
#26858996 - 08/02/20 01:53 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Cohens likes large sample size. Either way even with hedges its a small effect. Idk where the numbers came from tho
--------------------
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper


Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 3 days, 21 hours
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: morrowasted] 1
#26859002 - 08/02/20 01:56 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Bodhi, I also found the website you yanked those answers from. Our ability to type "effect size calculator" into google is equal! I should have realized when i asked the question that there would be one out there.
|
gopher
Coffee Bean Extraordinaire



Registered: 11/22/17
Posts: 12,999
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 15 minutes, 27 seconds
|
Re: PubMed: Both a blessing and a curse [Re: psi]
#26859037 - 08/02/20 02:15 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psi said:
Better PubMed than Youtube though I will say.
People are too quick to judge youtube as shitty, I cant really understand studies very well, I only have a highschool equivalency, but I can watch youtubers who read and understand the studies better then me and break them down in laymen terms, that is pretty usefull IMO and a good thing
Right now im into watching Jason Fungs youtubes, hes a nerphrologist from Toronto, his theory is that Insulin is the biggest driver of weight gain, with cortisol being the second (by driving up insulin) I think I have watched all his youtubes so I bought his earlier book called the obesity code, I just read that in 2 days and thought it was great, he also has 2 other books, the diabetes code, and the complete guide to fasting, I might get the dibetes code, but the reviews on Amazon for his fasting book makes me not want to pay so much for it, they say he repeats the same shit in every chapter, all the studies referenced were mouse studies and the book dosnt have any information not already in the obesity code
-------------------- For most of the normies out there, an operating system is just a bootloader for Google Chrome. Since Disney has obtained tremendous value from the public domain, knows how important the public domain is, and is firmly determined to never contribute anything to it. My pronouns are He and Him, and my adjectives are Fat and Jazzy
|
|