4 ms·
If this is real it's a huge deal. But unless they did a pre study release this is P hacked to death. 24 people, then narrowed to only over 40, 20% difference
by aaron695 6y ago
If this is real it's a huge deal.
But unless they did a pre study release this is P hacked to death.
24 people, then narrowed to only over 40, 20% difference in some frequencies.
If science worked we'd immediately re-test this. The cost savings per year could be enormous if it's true.
- charlieflowers 6y agoIf no corporation can make billions, it would likely go untested. There's nothing that drives altruistic development of things that improve peoples' lives. There's only greed-driven capitalism. As a result, many helpful things sit on the shelf.
- Markoff 6y agoSOME over 40, not even all over 40 and SOME of these up to 20%, I guess the others less or no difference, so in the end you end up with individuals you can count on one hand if they were serious why they didn't try this only on one eye to compare the effect on each person?
- meddlepal 6y agoDoing it on one eye per person would leave people with very unbalanced vision if it works great. That creates a QoL issue. Not enough understanding of the mechanism to then correct the other eye to the same level other than trying a "state at it for the same time approach".
- Markoff 6y agomaximum improvement was only 20%, for most none or less than 20% and only in dark enviroment, I don't think few weeks would really make any significant difference or discomfort which could not be reversed during next few weeks when you can exercise the other eye, so that's not really valid reason why not to do it this way