4 ms·

This Weinstein mouse model thing is blown completely out of proportion, and is only so prominent because his own brother Eric put it on The Portal. The point i

by Gatsky 6y ago

This Weinstein mouse model thing is blown completely out of proportion, and is only so prominent because his own brother Eric put it on The Portal. The point is that everyone knows mouse models are imperfect, but they are still useful. Pointing out one of the ways they are imperfect is fine. Pretending this is a nobel prize winning earth shattering discovery that is suppressed by the establishment is just annoying. Research about how mouse models are imperfect comes out all the time, eg there was a paper about how the relatively sterile lab environment changes the murine microbiome and immune system. Why aren't these researchers on Joe Rogan's podcast?

aaron695 6y ago
He specifically mentions comments like yours are not helpful. This is the researcher fraud that is the problem in science that we are talking about, issues at hand are ignored or twisted so the paper mill can continue. The concept is all mice in the USA come from one laboratory and have a common attribute that's different from wild mice and European suppliers. And it's spelt out how in theory this different attribute could change medical results. To come back with we don't care, without proof it's not a issue, is a deeply broken system, but is exactly how current universities work. Here's the actual segment (18 mins) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4q-1D_Ajo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4q-1D_Ajo Related (12 mins) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ygLNOt43So https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ygLNOt43So
- Gatsky 6y ago
  I've heard everything he said. I'm well aware of the concept. Again, everyone knows that all mice come from the same place (because it's written in the papers), and that they are very different to wild mice or mice from elsewhere. I also didn't say we don't have proof that it is a problem. Again, all models are imperfect, but some are useful. I am telling you what I see as the significance of Weinstein's findings as someone that works in the field. It is nonsesnical to me that this particular concept is suddenly so prominent because of Joe Rogan, whereas a multitude of other issues with research and human translation are not talked about at all. To me what this is really about is Weinstein's perception of the significance of his findings. He, like a lot of scientists, thinks his work is hugely important and he deserves more credit. Others do not. This happens all the time. The only difference is that he has found a way to disseminate his findings to a non-specialist audience.
  - aaron695 6y ago
    You are still saying what Weinstein said you would say. Weinstein has laid out a case. It theoretically makes sense. It is quantifiable. He makes a good argument it is massively significant. If confirmed it is fixable. If confirmed it means things in other fields. This is in pop culture, anyone researching with mice should have heard of it, so the fact no one can whip out an article disputing it says a lot. Science is broken and scientists are not to be trusted. I think this is a good test case how science deals with this and if it can actually move forward. It needs a good rebuttal to address the issue.
    - Gatsky 6y ago
      I don’t think you are listening to me. I am not disputing his point. I think it could well be valid and is certainly plausible. The idea is pretty clever. Attempts should be made to understand it more and minimise the effect. Great, add it to the list of problems with mouse models. It certainly isn’t at the top.
      - aaron695 6y ago
        Honestly, the video only 18 mins (9 mins at 2X) long. Just give it a watch. He says it's the top. He explains why it is the top. It is logical and well thought out with theoretical and practical evidence it is the top. I'm happy to consider it's not the top. But you have to actually say what is at the top.
  - henriquemaia 6y ago
    I usually do this exercise with my students when they tell me they understood what I just explained: I ask them to explain it back to all the class. Could you do that for us here? Explain to us what problem Weinstein detected, to what it relates to, and its consequences.
lettergram 6y ago
I generally agree people understand mouse models are imperfect. The issue here, is that you have to understand how they are imperfect if they have any value at all. In this case, doing drug research on a mouse model is fine. Unless the goal of that study is to see damage to organs or dna. Unfortunately, that’s what was not being controlled for or understood. Effectively, the DNA has more protection from damage in the lab micr used for models than normal mice or humans. This implies most of our drug evaluations look better on paper than reality. Huge deal if true And there’s evidence (long term) to support this. The reason it’s on the portal and Joe Rogan is no one in the scientific community is evaluating it (on the surface). What’s more baffling is working in and around this space, I can see the effects first hand (which I won’t dive into, for the same reason no one is saying anything about this in the scientific community).

by Gatsky 6y ago

aaron695 6y ago

He specifically mentions comments like yours are not helpful. This is the researcher fraud that is the problem in science that we are talking about, issues at hand are ignored or twisted so the paper mill can continue. The concept is all mice in the USA come from one laboratory and have a common attribute that's different from wild mice and European suppliers. And it's spelt out how in theory this different attribute could change medical results. To come back with we don't care, without proof it's not a issue, is a deeply broken system, but is exactly how current universities work. Here's the actual segment (18 mins) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4q-1D_Ajo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4q-1D_Ajo Related (12 mins) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ygLNOt43So https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ygLNOt43So

Gatsky 6y ago
I've heard everything he said. I'm well aware of the concept. Again, everyone knows that all mice come from the same place (because it's written in the papers), and that they are very different to wild mice or mice from elsewhere. I also didn't say we don't have proof that it is a problem. Again, all models are imperfect, but some are useful. I am telling you what I see as the significance of Weinstein's findings as someone that works in the field. It is nonsesnical to me that this particular concept is suddenly so prominent because of Joe Rogan, whereas a multitude of other issues with research and human translation are not talked about at all. To me what this is really about is Weinstein's perception of the significance of his findings. He, like a lot of scientists, thinks his work is hugely important and he deserves more credit. Others do not. This happens all the time. The only difference is that he has found a way to disseminate his findings to a non-specialist audience.
- aaron695 6y ago
  You are still saying what Weinstein said you would say. Weinstein has laid out a case. It theoretically makes sense. It is quantifiable. He makes a good argument it is massively significant. If confirmed it is fixable. If confirmed it means things in other fields. This is in pop culture, anyone researching with mice should have heard of it, so the fact no one can whip out an article disputing it says a lot. Science is broken and scientists are not to be trusted. I think this is a good test case how science deals with this and if it can actually move forward. It needs a good rebuttal to address the issue.
  - Gatsky 6y ago
    I don’t think you are listening to me. I am not disputing his point. I think it could well be valid and is certainly plausible. The idea is pretty clever. Attempts should be made to understand it more and minimise the effect. Great, add it to the list of problems with mouse models. It certainly isn’t at the top.
    - aaron695 6y ago
      Honestly, the video only 18 mins (9 mins at 2X) long. Just give it a watch. He says it's the top. He explains why it is the top. It is logical and well thought out with theoretical and practical evidence it is the top. I'm happy to consider it's not the top. But you have to actually say what is at the top.
- henriquemaia 6y ago
  I usually do this exercise with my students when they tell me they understood what I just explained: I ask them to explain it back to all the class. Could you do that for us here? Explain to us what problem Weinstein detected, to what it relates to, and its consequences.

lettergram 6y ago

I generally agree people understand mouse models are imperfect. The issue here, is that you have to understand how they are imperfect if they have any value at all. In this case, doing drug research on a mouse model is fine. Unless the goal of that study is to see damage to organs or dna. Unfortunately, that’s what was not being controlled for or understood. Effectively, the DNA has more protection from damage in the lab micr used for models than normal mice or humans. This implies most of our drug evaluations look better on paper than reality. Huge deal if true And there’s evidence (long term) to support this. The reason it’s on the portal and Joe Rogan is no one in the scientific community is evaluating it (on the surface). What’s more baffling is working in and around this space, I can see the effects first hand (which I won’t dive into, for the same reason no one is saying anything about this in the scientific community).