4 ms·

Assuming what you say is true, HN continues its trend of having great content for software and related topic, and being next to useless for meaningful physics o

by fhood 8y ago

Assuming what you say is true, HN continues its trend of having great content for software and related topic, and being next to useless for meaningful physics or medical news. I didn't notice this till my buddy who is a physicist pointed out that almost all of the physics articles on here are either wrong, or wildly misleading. It would be nice if we could be better about vetting this stuff as a community.

nonbel 8y ago
>"Assuming what you say is true" Don't take my word for it. Follow the links to what the primary literature says. >"being next to useless for meaningful physics or medical news" Well, to be fair the "amyloid hypothesis" is still the mainstream hypothesis. It's just that this is for reasons that are baffling to me. Afaict, it has nothing going for it at all vs the prior "cholinergic" hypothesis (which has resulted in treatments that actually appear to do something for the patient).
- vibrio 8y ago
  > the "amyloid hypothesis" is still the mainstream hypothesis. I agree with you. Amyloid may be the most popular but it isn't what it used to be 10-15 years ago (dogma). it has much weaker support. What is particular true and sad about what you've said is that it probably is the most popular but only due to lack of consensus on anything else. After running into the amyloid wall running at full-speed about a dozen times, significant chunks of pharma have nearly abandoned working on the disease, and put some funds into external research.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    Yea, but I don't even understand how it became dogma to begin with. The evidence was never that good for it.
    - vibrio 8y ago
      I'm in your camp and a previous career suffered for being there. I can't bear to count how many massive Phase 3 studies had to fail to raise doubts.
pvaldes 8y ago
You have a point, but a wrong statement can still lead to a interesting conversation. Just debunking it will help to the HN community.

by fhood 8y ago

nonbel 8y ago

>"Assuming what you say is true" Don't take my word for it. Follow the links to what the primary literature says. >"being next to useless for meaningful physics or medical news" Well, to be fair the "amyloid hypothesis" is still the mainstream hypothesis. It's just that this is for reasons that are baffling to me. Afaict, it has nothing going for it at all vs the prior "cholinergic" hypothesis (which has resulted in treatments that actually appear to do something for the patient).

vibrio 8y ago
> the "amyloid hypothesis" is still the mainstream hypothesis. I agree with you. Amyloid may be the most popular but it isn't what it used to be 10-15 years ago (dogma). it has much weaker support. What is particular true and sad about what you've said is that it probably is the most popular but only due to lack of consensus on anything else. After running into the amyloid wall running at full-speed about a dozen times, significant chunks of pharma have nearly abandoned working on the disease, and put some funds into external research.
- nonbel 8y ago
  Yea, but I don't even understand how it became dogma to begin with. The evidence was never that good for it.
  - vibrio 8y ago
    I'm in your camp and a previous career suffered for being there. I can't bear to count how many massive Phase 3 studies had to fail to raise doubts.

pvaldes 8y ago

You have a point, but a wrong statement can still lead to a interesting conversation. Just debunking it will help to the HN community.