Separate from Scotty, stats are all built on facts but generally do not add up correctly.
Almost all of modern physics is based upon statistics. Almost all of modern drug studies are based upon statistics. The list goes on. Statistics is a very useful branch of mathematics.
3 Likes
I am not saying otherwise.
When they hold up they hold up.
The medical journals are a very different animal than physics.
The study male versus female doctors who had a worse mortality rate is suggestive of male doctors have patients die more often. That was the result. Why? Why would being male matter? The female doctors also had patients die.
Were female doctors saving more patients?
Or was it a roll of the dice? A flip of the coin? All of the major events male doctors edged out the female doctors for a worse mortality rate.
If we look under the hood males who might choose male doctors would have a worse mortality rate.
The study randomized who got which patient. However, patients have the right to request the gender of their doctor. The randomization would be set aside occasionally like or not if the study admits this or not. With over 1 million patients people swapped doctors. Marginal difference.
The real question is does the study blame any of the doctors for the deaths? It is implicit in such a study.
One person wanted to know if your odds were worse that you would die with a male doctor would you see a male doctor? There is no logic in that question but that is where the stats led.
This is a confusing (confused???) statement. Did you mean 500 publications in peer reviewed journals? Any chance of a reference or two to this addition to the scientific archive.
If Mercola âŠand now Oz⊠are your reference points for research and the value of the Scientific Method, no wonder your ideas are so whacky
1 Like
Iâm pretty sure that Dr. Oz acquired âEmeritusâ status a good few years ago as heâd been into all things WOO! for a couple of decades, easily. Prior to his conversion all things quacktaculous, he had a decent reputation in his field, apparentlyâŠcardiothoracic surgery. I didnât think anyone took him seriously these daysâŠapparently I was mistaken.
Hereâs but one view of his nitwitteryâŠ
1 Like
VeeEnn,
Not any chance at all that I will look any of that up for you.
Get off your behind and look it up.
Conclusions
Selected research documenting blueberries as a health-promoting food has been presented. Evidence supporting a role for blueberries and anthocyanins in human health is outlined according to human observational and clinical evidence, followed by mechanistic research using animal and in vitro models. Blueberry treatments generally produce larger effects in experimental models involving stress or disease risk.
My comment berries are common sense. The effects âin experimental modelsâ are not nearly the same in day-to-day consumption. The study here is honest but easily misread by many people and easily âusedâ by people like Oz to make money.
The study is misleading because it does not apply to anything. Categorize it as wrong or nonsense.
Actually, I didnât find it at all misleading.
Having something of a background in science, use of the Scientific Method, and more than a passing interest in the field of nutrition and nutritional biochemistry, I have enough of a take on how to slot it into the overall hierarchy of information thatâs useful. Whilst it wouldnât change my personal consumption any, itâs certainly deserving of a place in the scientific archiveâŠpending a serious challenge to the data presented, of course.
It is not useful information.
But that IS useful information.
Itâs accurate insight and tells someone âŠwho might otherwise fall for the twaddle that the Joe Mercolas and Dr Ozs of this world spew out in a convincing way âŠthat theyâre being bamboozled. Exactly the reason that reviews like this deserve their place in scientific archive.
1 Like
Oh brother
The summary paraphrasing the research largely overstated results. The model diet was over done.
Yes we know Oz is wrong.
Yes we know some blueberries are common sense.
snippet
Epidemiological studies associate regular, moderate intake of blueberries and/or anthocyanins with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, death, and type 2 diabetes, and with improved weight maintenance and neuroprotection. These findings are supported by biomarker-based evidence from human clinical studies.
Going by this study and its careful measurements the findings for every day consumption are still very much an unknown. The statement above is not clear enough. The statements are also wrong in daily living. Slightly true of course but wrong.
Hello VeeEnn,
Iâm sure you are aware that the blueberry article is a review, not a research paper. As such, it is only summarizing the research in the literature rather than presenting it in a way where it can be critically assessed. The role of the review authors is to present their views on the conclusiveness of the data and where there are gaps or inconsistencies.
I found the review pretty interesting. I didnât know that there was evidence from animal models that blueberry ingestion could have a direct effect on brain biochemistry:
Blueberry supplementation correlated with increases in hippocampal cAMP response elementâbinding protein phosphorylation and concentrations of brain-derived neurotrophic factor and improved performance in spatial working memory tasks of old animals
Or that the association of blueberries with mitigating type2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was as strong as it apparently is:
Of all the fruits analyzed in 3 prospective studies, blueberries provided the strongest association, with T2DM risk reduction of 26% (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66â0.83)
Same with the impact on heart disease. A 32% risk reduction is nothing to sneeze at.
Higher intakes of blueberries, strawberries, and total anthocyanins were all associated with a 32% lower rate of myocardial infarction, and this association was independent of established risk factors
I found it also useful to learn that blueberry juices loses much of its more healthful components.
During juice and purée processing, heat, oxygen, and enzymes can degrade blueberry phytochemicals, with greatest losses to vitamin C and anthocyanins.
I was intrigued by one statement about berries and obesity:
In a comparison of intakes of 16 common fruits, the highest blueberry intake was associated with the least weight gain (â0.64 kg over 4 y) in a prospective study of over 133,000 men and women followed for â€24 y
So I looked up the reference and came across this interesting figure. Berries seem to be more effective at limiting weight gain than other fruits/vegetables. Changes in Intake of Fruits and Vegetables and Weight Change in United States Men and Women Followed for Up to 24 Years: Analysis from Three Prospective Cohort Studies - PMC
Very interesting and useful review article for those who know how to read.
Yes, I do like review articles such as this as someone else has done the donkey work in sorting and sifting throughâŠleaving me to just read and maybe double check any of the references if something isnât clear. Even better when someone else has done the Googling and gifted meâŠhowever inadvertentlyâŠwith an interesting read.
Almost worth being âignoredâ 
âNever argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.â --Mark Twain (supposedly).
3 Likes
Totally agree but there is tons of that as I am pointing out.
I did not read it in full. It is donkeyâs work to be bothered with this crap.
Advanced degrees might be a ticket to entry. But any idiot can be overblown. Talk about mountains of donkeyâs work.
If you have a dimwitâs idea of stats it shows.
Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures
https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc?st=fk1qsnyqettx6c9
Fake studies have flooded the publishers of top scientific journals, leading to thousands of retractions and millions of dollars in lost revenue. The biggest hit has come to Wiley, a 217-year-old publisher based in Hoboken, N.J., which Tuesday will announce that it is closing 19 journals, some of which were infected by large-scale research fraud.
In the past two years, Wiley has retracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised, according to a spokesperson, and closed four journals. It isnât alone: At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each. Several others have pulled smaller clusters of bad papersâŠ
The discovery of nearly 900 fraudulent papers in 2022 at IOP Publishing, a physical sciences publisher, was a turning point for the nonprofit. âThat really crystallized for us, everybody internally, everybody involved with the business,â said Kim Eggleton, head of peer review and research integrity at the publisher. âThis is a real threat.â
The sources of the fake science are âpaper millsââbusinesses or individuals that, for a price, will list a scientist as an author of a wholly or partially fabricated paper. The mill then submits the work, generally avoiding the most prestigious journals in favor of publications such as one-off special editions that might not undergo as thorough a review and where they have a better chance of getting bogus work published.
DB2
4 Likes
And people wonder why I question every âstudyâ the media touts.
Steve
2 Likes
No question that this shows that âscienceâ as a social structure is in deep doodoo.
Makes me sad, frustrated, but worse still I am not surprised.
d fb
1 Like
On the other hand, Wiley isnât really a scientific publisher. Theyâre just an ordinary, general publisher.
In the years before the internet, I used them as a source for tax law and associated research materials. Never the best, though. They were competent at copying the actual law and court cases. Their editorial work was just average. (The good - and more expensive - sources were CCH and RIA.)
More rigorous scientific journals are still trying to hold fast, but are hard pressed to turn a profit in the face of the indiscriminate publishers like Wiley.
âPeter
4 Likes
Well, there you have it. People gaming the system for a buck. Is this really the fault of legitimate science?
4 Likes