3 ms·

Agreed but. Caveat here is that despite remaining skeptical we should still heavily pursue the idea as a possibility. We should not pursue this idea as if it wa

Agreed but. Caveat here is that despite remaining skeptical we should still heavily pursue the idea as a possibility. We should not pursue this idea as if it was dogma.

stevenwoo 3y ago
They did a comparison with graphene particles of the same size and they were neutral to the biological structure in question, only polystyrene of that size would bind to interfere with normal cell function in vitro and mice.
marcosdumay 3y ago
If a lot of people heavily pursue the idea without doing any conclusive study, you'll have lots and lots of positive non-conclusive results to publish on any hypothesis, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.
- corethree 3y ago
  By pursue as a possibility I mean try to get a conclusive result. What you are describing here is "pursue as dogma"
Sparkyte 3y ago
This would be treating a hypothesis as fact. That isn't scientific enough, it would be good to isolate a demographic where plastics are least used and a demographic where plastics are highly used with similar populations. Try to remove or invalidate external effects or properties and calculate the health of the individuals. Health not just alzhimers, because everyone varies differently. This would be almost an impossible task. I'm sure there are more scientific ways to do a study.
- corethree 3y ago
  No. I'm not saying this either. I'm saying with some evidence it's worth investing more money into causative experiments. This study is that "some" evidence. That means double blind experiments. Your correlative studies don't offer enough evidence. Causation is our strongest scientific metric. Human causative experiments are worth it as well in my mind with paid volunteers who are aware of the risk. But the legal barriers here are likely high. We can start with chimpanzees.
  - Sparkyte 3y ago
    My bad. It just feel like it needs more research.

Agreed but. Caveat here is that despite remaining skeptical we should still heavily pursue the idea as a possibility. We should not pursue this idea as if it was dogma.

stevenwoo 3y ago

They did a comparison with graphene particles of the same size and they were neutral to the biological structure in question, only polystyrene of that size would bind to interfere with normal cell function in vitro and mice.

marcosdumay 3y ago

If a lot of people heavily pursue the idea without doing any conclusive study, you'll have lots and lots of positive non-conclusive results to publish on any hypothesis, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

corethree 3y ago
By pursue as a possibility I mean try to get a conclusive result. What you are describing here is "pursue as dogma"

Sparkyte 3y ago

This would be treating a hypothesis as fact. That isn't scientific enough, it would be good to isolate a demographic where plastics are least used and a demographic where plastics are highly used with similar populations. Try to remove or invalidate external effects or properties and calculate the health of the individuals. Health not just alzhimers, because everyone varies differently. This would be almost an impossible task. I'm sure there are more scientific ways to do a study.

corethree 3y ago
No. I'm not saying this either. I'm saying with some evidence it's worth investing more money into causative experiments. This study is that "some" evidence. That means double blind experiments. Your correlative studies don't offer enough evidence. Causation is our strongest scientific metric. Human causative experiments are worth it as well in my mind with paid volunteers who are aware of the risk. But the legal barriers here are likely high. We can start with chimpanzees.
- Sparkyte 3y ago
  My bad. It just feel like it needs more research.