4 ms·

To some extent isn't that expected? Let's face it - who would spend the money to fund a study on a substance that's been around for hundreds (thousands?) of ye

To some extent isn't that expected? Let's face it - who would spend the money to fund a study on a substance that's been around for hundreds (thousands?) of years? Probably if you're going to spend the money to investigate it, you expect some kind of return. So sadly, all these studies end up being funded by people with an interest in a positive outcome. The bigger question to me is, does that immediately invalidate their results?

swsieber 8y ago
It depends on the ratio of studies funded vs studies published. I wouldn't be surprised if around 90-95% of special interest funded studies that aim for a p value of <5% aren't published.
- laingc 8y ago
  > I wouldn't be surprised if around 90-95% of special interest funded studies that aim for a p value of <5% aren't published. This is true of the majority of publicly-funded research, too.
eggy 8y ago
Yes, I agree, and expect people, companies or whatever to act in their own self-interest, so no implication it is rigged because it may be self-serving. However, I am more suspicious of the study, and studies in general after the recent wave that uncovered an epidemic of unsound statistical methods being used in studies across multiple disciplines. Unfortunately, I am not proficient enough in statistics to vet these things out for myself most of the time, so I remain skeptical, and similarly cliche with the Edgar Allen Poe quote: “You are young yet, my friend,” replied my host, “but the time will arrive when you will learn to judge for yourself of what is going on in the world, without trusting to the gossip of others. Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
The bigger question to me is, does that immediately invalidate their results? It warrants skepticism of the strongest variety unless the study can be reliably replicated under better circumstances. Don’t be shocked when it doesn’t happen though. Like alcohol studies paid for by brewers, this is hard to accept at face value given the knowns. Even when money isn’t pulling the strings, nutrition studies are notoriously unreliable by dint of human variability and the nature of the studies themselves.
darkpuma 8y ago
> The bigger question to me is, does that immediately invalidate their results? How many times did they fund this study with different research groups, quietly round filing the results each time until they found a research group willing to p-hack a flattering result?
MarkusAllen 8y ago
If a YouTuber pulled off this study and vlogged it from start to end, they would make a shit ton of money.
coldtea 8y ago
>The bigger question to me is, does that immediately invalidate their results? Considering that most such research results are already non-reproducible and p-hacking, the added vested interests land this squarely in the crap category. People like us nerds thinking it through strict logic ("still this does not necessarily invalidate") might reduce some false negatives, but it mostly just wastes our time and has us taken for suckers from industry/marketing con men. With this kind of "research" taking a shortcut in its evaluation is more productive.

swsieber 8y ago

It depends on the ratio of studies funded vs studies published. I wouldn't be surprised if around 90-95% of special interest funded studies that aim for a p value of <5% aren't published.

laingc 8y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if around 90-95% of special interest funded studies that aim for a p value of <5% aren't published. This is true of the majority of publicly-funded research, too.

eggy 8y ago

Yes, I agree, and expect people, companies or whatever to act in their own self-interest, so no implication it is rigged because it may be self-serving. However, I am more suspicious of the study, and studies in general after the recent wave that uncovered an epidemic of unsound statistical methods being used in studies across multiple disciplines. Unfortunately, I am not proficient enough in statistics to vet these things out for myself most of the time, so I remain skeptical, and similarly cliche with the Edgar Allen Poe quote: “You are young yet, my friend,” replied my host, “but the time will arrive when you will learn to judge for yourself of what is going on in the world, without trusting to the gossip of others. Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see."

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago

The bigger question to me is, does that immediately invalidate their results? It warrants skepticism of the strongest variety unless the study can be reliably replicated under better circumstances. Don’t be shocked when it doesn’t happen though. Like alcohol studies paid for by brewers, this is hard to accept at face value given the knowns. Even when money isn’t pulling the strings, nutrition studies are notoriously unreliable by dint of human variability and the nature of the studies themselves.

darkpuma 8y ago

> The bigger question to me is, does that immediately invalidate their results? How many times did they fund this study with different research groups, quietly round filing the results each time until they found a research group willing to p-hack a flattering result?

MarkusAllen 8y ago

If a YouTuber pulled off this study and vlogged it from start to end, they would make a shit ton of money.

coldtea 8y ago

>The bigger question to me is, does that immediately invalidate their results? Considering that most such research results are already non-reproducible and p-hacking, the added vested interests land this squarely in the crap category. People like us nerds thinking it through strict logic ("still this does not necessarily invalidate") might reduce some false negatives, but it mostly just wastes our time and has us taken for suckers from industry/marketing con men. With this kind of "research" taking a shortcut in its evaluation is more productive.