32 ms·
I've noticed its a common thing wherein: 1. People imagine without any evidence, but only a plausible story, that X is good for Y (say for instance, vitamin C
by jackmott42 3y ago
I've noticed its a common thing wherein:
1. People imagine without any evidence, but only a plausible story, that X is good for Y (say for instance, vitamin C for colds, because vitamin C is involved in the immune system)
2. Study after study is done finding no benefit, but each study you quote, someone finds some nit pick about it "well maybe the dosage wasn't high enough" or "maybe they did/didn't take it with calcium" and then continue to believe there must be some way to derive benefit
- taeric 3y agoI mean, this isn't wrong. At the same time, it took a long time for studies to show that ulcers are not just reactions to stress. Study after study for many years showed the opposite. This isn't even getting into the problems of studies with nutrition, in general. That said, I should be clear that I'm not pushing for learning some of these "brain games" for their own sake. I am more throwing out that equivalent of the Tyler Durden quote regarding chickens. :D