dumbneurologist

18 ms·

31.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
i read it as saying it's for programming projects. And the output of a programming project is code. And you can't use this project if you don't reduce the code of your own (programming) project - in that case you would need
32.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
all human beings should be allowed to record their thoughts and communicate without those thoughts being surveilled. What is so different in 2018 that the ability to think and communicate in secret is somehow a threat to law enforcement? La
33.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
This is addressed by pre-trial registration. You can't have publication bias (his argument) when you register the study and see that this is the only one.
34.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
Sorry to state this so strongly but I feel it's important to point out that this is misinformation of the most egregious kind. There is no examination of statistical power in this article whatsoever so there is no basis
35.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
Except that it was preregistered, as described in the article. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01383161?cond=NCT0138... It's great to be skeptical, but it's really lame to be skeptical and lazy.
36.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
None of your criticisms from wikipedia pertain to this publication. The paragraph is essentially making the argument that a randomized, double blind (DB), placebo controlled (PC) clinical trial (RCT) is unlikely to show that curcurmin is ef
37.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
completely true. the problem is that efficacy studies (like I want) are not that exciting to report. as a result, the lay press reports only mechanism studies (because their readers like to be "wowed" and think about things, like
38.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
there are tons of potential pitfalls and a combination of experimental limitations you provided some, which are at least partially addressed by the study design. (I don't think it's your point, but let me agree that &qu
39.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
none of this applies to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial (which is what this article is). the reason it's the gold standard for medicine is because the only thing that is different in aggregate between th
40.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
agree that replication is important and that it's too early to believe fully, but when a study size is small and you still find a difference, then it implies the effect size is large. If you meet statistical significance, then diminis
41.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
I am a neurologist. this is actually the exact opposite of what you should care about, which is "does it work to treat ___" In this trial, and 99% of other trials, there is no mechanism provided by the study, only a measurement
42.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
the other reply is correct, but i had a hard time understanding the point without a concrete example: making the roads narrower with visual cues regarding your speed causes people to slow down.
43.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
> I'm hopeful that we'll learn from this. Consider for a moment what you think the lesson is. Now that you have it... (have it? great) ... is it different from the lesson when Pocket was made part of the browser?
44.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
thank you for bringing this up; I wasn't aware exactly how high the costs of cheating really were. but it's tremendously important: what would we say about a person who killed or contributed directly to the killing of 38,000 peopl
45.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
ultrasound is completely capable of not only affecting brain tissue, but destroying it. as with anything else: it's about the amount of energy you put into it. Focused ultrasound would be completely capable, and share the quality of be
46.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
this section: its research committee approved my request to view the records of this experiment, the so-called data set, which referred to subjects by code names only. But because kaczynski’s alias was by then known to some jou
47.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
there is a lot of self-confidence in your reply, but it doesn't address his/her point: that there is essentially a "loophole" that Oracle could exploit if they wanted to by writing a new version of the CDDL. his/her
48.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
what ever happened to him? the news with his name stops the day he was arrested.
49.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
> Meanwhile there are great plugins for searching within all open tabs which is your favorite?
50.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
yet she/he is still a human being, and (i hope!) cares about your son. being "old school" means that she/he was trained in a certain way, but it doesn't mean that they have been brain-washed or is incapable of seein
51.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
I obviously don't know anything regarding your mom's condition, but SAH (a form of hemorrhagic stroke) by itself can have very complete recovery. The real question is how much ischemic stroke there was with it. If the answer is &q
52.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
Does his neurologist recommend it?
53.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
I am really sorry to hear that you've had such a terrible thing happen to you. I think the scientific community is moving in the right direction in recognizing the insidious nature but ultimate impact that these injuries can have. But
54.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
the diving reflex is real, and is used clinically to treat supraventricular tachycardia (where a re-entrant electrical feedback loop in the heart can be broken by slowing down the choke-point through which it passes). It slows down the hear
55.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
I can't speak intelligently to your questions, because I have no relevant first-hand experience or knowledge of CPR literature. My only point regarding > The average rule is that if heart has not restarted after 6 minutes, brain dam
56.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
Haha. This is an incredibly polite reply, sharpened to a very fine point. I'm grateful I have something to contribute to a site that I've gotten an incredible amount out of. And it's a powerful reminder that very very smart p
57.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
> Could this be just a case of the medical community not accepting a new technique That the medical community wants evidence to substantiate an extreme claim is not a valid criticism of the medical community: it's literally the scie
58.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
Disclaimer: I am a neurologist The enthusiastic replies on this thread are understandable, but disappointing to see: we all need to be less credulous regarding the lay science press, and especially the lay medical press. I would love nothin
59.
by dumbneurologist 9y ago
it seems to me that the way scientists address the question of "is this global warming?" is wrong-headed, even though it's not literally wrong. We deal with this frequently in medicine. There are lots of questions that the no