3 ms·

I think you think that the only kind of study that confirm this hypothesis is some kind of RCT, where we give one group a placebo toilet flush, and the other I

by ouid 4y ago

I think you think that the only kind of study that confirm this hypothesis is some kind of RCT, where we give one group a placebo toilet flush, and the other I try to get infect with norovirus. The point of "https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094" which is more or less making the same tongue in cheek argument as you, is that there are limitations to what can be counted through an RCT. I am, however, not talking about an RCT. I am talking about the conspicuous lack of observational study of the clinical phenomenonology of toilet plume, rather than some secondary observation about scary germs. Epidemiologists must find ways to study illness without actually making people ill, but they still, for the most part, manage. Moreover, observational study is not, in any way, lacking, about what happens when you jump out of a plane with a parachute. It's not merely common sense, it has been observed to happen. Moreover, this is reflected pretty fucking well in the literature https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478603/pdf/brjsmed00041-0015.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478603/pdf/brj....

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
I am simply amazed that you cannot see adverse risk in certain activities without a study - observational, RCT, or otherwise - confirming it. I wonder how people 500 years ago lived with risk without the proliferation of studies that we have today. Maybe risk simply did not exist back then since no studies confirmed it?
- ouid 4y ago
  >you cannot see adverse risk in certain activities without a study - observational, RCT, or otherwise - confirming it. This is pretty far from my claim. I didn't say that I don't believe things without clinical evidence. I said that there is a conspicuous lack of clinical evidence for something which otherwise has so many claims surrounding it. Even a simple questionnaire would be publishable, if it showed an effect. Do you close your toilet lid? Have you had an illness in which you experienced vomiting or diarrhea in the last 6 months? How many people do you live with? I think perhaps you assume that "you are with the experts" on this one. That most researchers consider the evidence presented in this article to be good evidence that there is a health benefit to closing the toilet lid of your toilet. I can assure you that most researchers do not consider this to be good evidence, exactly because it has no clinical endpoint. It might as well say "in mice". Perhaps you believe that there is some common sense reason to think that toilet plume is a bad thing, but common sense largely fails to come to correct conclusions about germs. Which is the case that I have been making in this thread.

by ouid 4y ago

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

I am simply amazed that you cannot see adverse risk in certain activities without a study - observational, RCT, or otherwise - confirming it. I wonder how people 500 years ago lived with risk without the proliferation of studies that we have today. Maybe risk simply did not exist back then since no studies confirmed it?

ouid 4y ago
>you cannot see adverse risk in certain activities without a study - observational, RCT, or otherwise - confirming it. This is pretty far from my claim. I didn't say that I don't believe things without clinical evidence. I said that there is a conspicuous lack of clinical evidence for something which otherwise has so many claims surrounding it. Even a simple questionnaire would be publishable, if it showed an effect. Do you close your toilet lid? Have you had an illness in which you experienced vomiting or diarrhea in the last 6 months? How many people do you live with? I think perhaps you assume that "you are with the experts" on this one. That most researchers consider the evidence presented in this article to be good evidence that there is a health benefit to closing the toilet lid of your toilet. I can assure you that most researchers do not consider this to be good evidence, exactly because it has no clinical endpoint. It might as well say "in mice". Perhaps you believe that there is some common sense reason to think that toilet plume is a bad thing, but common sense largely fails to come to correct conclusions about germs. Which is the case that I have been making in this thread.