I knew a snake oil saleswoman who did “vagus nerve massage” fucking gentrifying bitch scammed people (AND CHILDREN) with serious illnesses. I hope you went back to fucking Wisconsin you God damned stupid idiot bitch from hell
So the question is was anything faked or misleading? Or did they actually find that this worked? What is it about the study that seems off?
You can’t just point at money and go “See? fake.” That’s caveman shit.
Like, of course the people who make the devices want proof that they work. However can you point to where their money influenced the outcome of the study, beyond facilitating its existence? Was their method of sample selection biased toward successful outcomes? Did they neglect to include other therapies tried in conjunction or other confounding variables? Did they straight up fake any data?
It doesnt matter if they paid for it, if the results end up being true. What I am looking for is criticism of the methods that invalidate the results. Are there any?
Too often contrarianism is confused and substituted for critical thinking. However to read anything about any new product without contrasting Astro turfing or propaganda is naive
It doesnt matter if they paid for it, if the results end up being true. What I am looking for is criticism of the methods that invalidate the results. Are there any?
Counter point, “fat makes you fat,” “sugar is necessary for a good diet,” “fluoride in drinking water improves tooth health,” “leaded gasoline is harmless,” “leaded paint is safe,” etc. Many of these were held “scientifically true” for years and had plenty of “peer-reviewed” science behind that assertion.
Except it wasn’t really peer-reviewed. And it was never scientifically proven. Despite the hundreds of research papers that all “passed” peer review.
That’s why researchers now have to declare their financial sponsorships in honest science journals, because it automatically means whatever results they’re claiming should not be trusted until peers without any financial incentive review the findings. This claim has not been reviewed in that way, so this assertion has the same value as a random lemmy comment.
I’ll have to find the link but flouride in drinking water has been shown to do little, if anything, to affect tooth decay. It also isn’t harmful to our health in concentrations found in tap water. More of a neutral thing than the “flOuRidE Is goNnA cAlCifY yoUr PeeNer GlAnD” that usually gets associated with people saying flouride doesn’t work. Idk what side of that argument the person you responded to is on but it’s not entirely unfounded
Edit: I had it wrong. It’s not that flouride in our water isn’t helpful, it’s just that topical flouride in things like toothpaste is more helpful, so in places where flouride is available in topical products, you won’t see much of a benefit from it.
The study was paid for by the device manufacturer.
I knew a snake oil saleswoman who did “vagus nerve massage” fucking gentrifying bitch scammed people (AND CHILDREN) with serious illnesses. I hope you went back to fucking Wisconsin you God damned stupid idiot bitch from hell
So the question is was anything faked or misleading? Or did they actually find that this worked? What is it about the study that seems off?
You can’t just point at money and go “See? fake.” That’s caveman shit.
Like, of course the people who make the devices want proof that they work. However can you point to where their money influenced the outcome of the study, beyond facilitating its existence? Was their method of sample selection biased toward successful outcomes? Did they neglect to include other therapies tried in conjunction or other confounding variables? Did they straight up fake any data?
It doesnt matter if they paid for it, if the results end up being true. What I am looking for is criticism of the methods that invalidate the results. Are there any?
Too often contrarianism is confused and substituted for critical thinking. However to read anything about any new product without contrasting Astro turfing or propaganda is naive
anything not double blind should be immediately ignored unless the ask is for more funding for non biased studies
Counter point, “fat makes you fat,” “sugar is necessary for a good diet,” “fluoride in drinking water improves tooth health,” “leaded gasoline is harmless,” “leaded paint is safe,” etc. Many of these were held “scientifically true” for years and had plenty of “peer-reviewed” science behind that assertion.
Except it wasn’t really peer-reviewed. And it was never scientifically proven. Despite the hundreds of research papers that all “passed” peer review.
That’s why researchers now have to declare their financial sponsorships in honest science journals, because it automatically means whatever results they’re claiming should not be trusted until peers without any financial incentive review the findings. This claim has not been reviewed in that way, so this assertion has the same value as a random lemmy comment.
Snuck in flouride there huh.
I’ll have to find the link but flouride in drinking water has been shown to do little, if anything, to affect tooth decay. It also isn’t harmful to our health in concentrations found in tap water. More of a neutral thing than the “flOuRidE Is goNnA cAlCifY yoUr PeeNer GlAnD” that usually gets associated with people saying flouride doesn’t work. Idk what side of that argument the person you responded to is on but it’s not entirely unfounded
Edit: I had it wrong. It’s not that flouride in our water isn’t helpful, it’s just that topical flouride in things like toothpaste is more helpful, so in places where flouride is available in topical products, you won’t see much of a benefit from it.
If it’s a proper peer reviewed study that doesn’t matter. All researchers get paid.