Does anyone on MFP actually understand studies?

Matt_Wild
Matt_Wild Posts: 2,673 Member
edited December 2024 in Chit-Chat
I'm finding it increasingly frustrating on MFP that people do not seem to understand the difference between science, anecdotal, epidemiological research and the whole correlation/causation problem?

I find people bleating on saying that XYZ may be dangerous and use a piece by a research scientist who says they XYZ may cause ABC but needs further research then completely seem to see this is not proof but merely a suggestion by someone who is probably looking for a research grant rather than anything else?

You cannot compare actual real world results that show proof one way against a suggestion by a researcher - they are not the same thing!
«1

Replies

  • Kai85
    Kai85 Posts: 439 Member
    who's paying for the study is always interesting...
  • ZeroWoIf
    ZeroWoIf Posts: 588 Member
    I'm finding it increasingly frustrating on MFP that people do not seem to understand the difference between science, anecdotal, epidemiological research and the whole correlation/causation problem?

    I find people bleating on saying that XYZ may be dangerous and use a piece by a research scientist who says they XYZ may cause ABC but needs further research then completely seem to see this is not proof but merely a suggestion by someone who is probably looking for a research grant rather than anything else?

    You cannot compare actual real world results that show proof one way against a suggestion by a researcher - they are not the same thing!

    I don't care about studies and never read them. People in here are obviously obsessed with them, and completely rely on them as some golden rule. I don't bother anyone about obsessing about them because that is their problem. Research at times has been known to curb information in the wrong way from time to time.
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    Yeah, as a person with a doctorate in toxicology, I'd say I have a pretty good grasp on what a study says and how to interpret it.

    That's not to say I've read everything about anything in my field.

    And as the first reply says it is vital who funds it, as you design a lot of experiments to make them say what you want.
  • HendersonDavid
    HendersonDavid Posts: 25
    I'm in the medical field for school, so I have to, so I may inform thousand of people that Dr.Oz is a huge broscience leader and is out to make money not make people and women happy.
  • AngryDiet
    AngryDiet Posts: 1,349 Member
    Studies are easy.

    I just wait for someone here who has undisclosed credentials (if any) to summarize it very briefly for me.

    Problem solved.
  • _the_feniks_
    _the_feniks_ Posts: 3,412 Member
    who's paying for the study is always interesting...

    Very valid point.
  • spade117
    spade117 Posts: 2,466 Member
    I don't like to study.
  • BAMFMeredith
    BAMFMeredith Posts: 2,810 Member
    Cool story, bro.
  • EyeLikeTacos
    EyeLikeTacos Posts: 324 Member
    I'm finding it increasingly frustrating on MFP that people do not seem to understand the difference between science, anecdotal, epidemiological research and the whole correlation/causation problem?

    I find people bleating on saying that XYZ may be dangerous and use a piece by a research scientist who says they XYZ may cause ABC but needs further research then completely seem to see this is not proof but merely a suggestion by someone who is probably looking for a research grant rather than anything else?

    You cannot compare actual real world results that show proof one way against a suggestion by a researcher - they are not the same thing!

    Good Post Matt...the old XYZ happens because ABC is used a lot here on MFP...What gets me really bothered is that they will take one researchers findings and run that ish to the ground...even though there is opposing research on the other side of the argument....

    I personally love reading, hearing about, and reviewing peoples arguments of causation and their backup research to prove their point...I would humbly change my point of view from one side to neutral IF I can see a point on both sides...If I do not agree with that person argument or findings...it's usually because I defer to personal experience to trump it all...

    I hope that made sense.
  • Long_and_Lean
    Long_and_Lean Posts: 175 Member
    OP, I do scientific research for a living and feel your pain. With that in mind, I think you'll enjoy the following:

    phd051809s.gif
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    :laugh:p=0.56...

    I love PHD comics...
  • EyeLikeTacos
    EyeLikeTacos Posts: 324 Member
    Long_and_Lean!

    :laugh:
  • sarahharmintx
    sarahharmintx Posts: 868 Member
    who's paying for the study is always interesting...

    Very valid point.
    True. My favorites are the "we study 49 women over 2 years". Really? Those 49 women are enough to tell you about the population?
  • EyeLikeTacos
    EyeLikeTacos Posts: 324 Member
    who's paying for the study is always interesting...

    Very valid point.
    True. My favorites are the "we study 49 women over 2 years". Really? Those 49 women are enough to tell you about the population?

    WELLL....LOL! Good one...I guess you could say if they picked one woman from the top 49 states? I don't know...but yea...that's one small *kitten* sample size.
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    Really? Those 49 women are enough to tell you about the population?

    depending on what they are looking for...yeah...

    PETA people stop reading NOW!...

    I found a correlation strong enough to get published in groups with just 6 animals. I was testing a treatment for arsenic that was intended to be used in a human population, so please don't hate me.
  • EyeLikeTacos
    EyeLikeTacos Posts: 324 Member
    Really? Those 49 women are enough to tell you about the population?

    ugh, depending on what they are looking for...yeah...


    a vagina?...yea I am sure those results will be hard to argue with.
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    168871.jpg

    bolt.gif
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    It's funny how everyone whos "By the numbers" can never make the numbers properly work for them.

    They post Pubmed this and Pubmed that but in their use of the info cannot make the research actually work.

    Take for instance this "Cut 1000cals from each day and youll lose 2lbs a week."
    So far I have never seen this pan out but damn if I dont get 15-20 Pubmeds thrown at me about VLCDs and how they work!
  • recoiljpr
    recoiljpr Posts: 292
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQU5m4L59XyhovFgBIhWWYkeLgIsqQqIe5Aru1e70DK3Hui_us-
  • Wenchilada
    Wenchilada Posts: 472 Member
    who's paying for the study is always interesting...

    Yup. That's generally one of the first pieces of information I look for. Who's sponsoring the study, and who else supports the sponsor?
  • AggieCass09
    AggieCass09 Posts: 1,867 Member
    :laugh:p=0.56...

    I love PHD comics...


    hahaha!
  • iieee
    iieee Posts: 39 Member
    I am a medical statistician and have published a few papers based on different clinical trials, in peer reviewed journals no less. :glasses:

    My advice is be a duck. Let it wash over you.:wink:
  • NormalSaneFLGuy
    NormalSaneFLGuy Posts: 1,344 Member
    As my brother who does bio research says "a study is as dependable as the person reporting the data, because by omitting elements they deem unfit, a study can look as good or bad as they desire."
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    I find people bleating on saying that XYZ may be dangerous and use a piece by a research scientist who says they XYZ may cause ABC but needs further research then completely seem to see this is not proof but merely a suggestion by someone who is probably looking for a research grant rather than anything else?

    If they are saying it "may" be dangerous based on preliminary evidence showing it may, indeed, cause ABC (assuming ABC is something undesirable such as disease), then how is their statement incorrect?
  • Wenchilada
    Wenchilada Posts: 472 Member
    A peek into the average "scientific research" lab mentioned on daytime TV and/or the internet:

    funny-science-news-experiments-memes-dog-fuzzy-logic_132314808869.jpg
  • zombilishious
    zombilishious Posts: 1,250 Member
    A study is going to prove what it was funded to prove. Didn't the Vioxx litigation teach us anything?
  • Long_and_Lean
    Long_and_Lean Posts: 175 Member
    A study is going to prove what it was funded to prove. Didn't the Vioxx litigation teach us anything?

    Erm, not quite. But the *published* studies only prove what they were designed to prove. And therein lies the problem. Nobody can publish negative results anymore, which not only wastes time of other researchers attempting something similar (not knowing someone else already did it and it didn't work), but it holds back scientific progress. Ya first gotta figure out what doesn't work before you can know what does. 99.99% of the crap I do ends up being completely worthless, but it's that 0.01% that does that makes a big difference.
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    LOL...the grad students in our program joked about starting a journal titled "The Journal of Negative Results".

    It was pep up talk for those of who inevitably struggle trying to get the results our PI's demand...
  • Long_and_Lean
    Long_and_Lean Posts: 175 Member
    LOL...the grad students in our program joked about starting a journal titled "The Journal of Negative Results".

    It was pep up talk for those of who inevitably struggle trying to get the results our PI's demand...

    The whole system is seriously f*cked up (man, am I ever the disgruntled postdoc!).
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    Postdoc...if the general public knew how much work these people do for very little pay and so little credit, they'd be outraged.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories