nonbel

78 ms·

751.
by nonbel 8y ago
>'"the" amyloid hypothesis (again, it's a family of hypotheses because each drug has a different intended mechanism of action and is therefore a different testable hypothesis) has been the only workable theory of how
752.
by nonbel 8y ago
You dont need to do the exact sum. Small values in the denominator have negligible effect and can be dropped. Also, "you cant do the sum, therefore its insignificant" makes no sense.
753.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"But how much of that is hindsight?" I can't say personally. As commented elsewhere, I first looked into it about 2014 and almost immediately thought this amyloid hypothesis should have died years ago. >"the evide
754.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Just don't lose sight of the fact that the amyloid hypothesis did and still does have good evidence for it." What is this evidence? The evidence I know of is quite weak. There are a few correlations here and there, and t
755.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"(If it were just a random coincidence, you would expect the plaques to show up in people without Alzheimer's, but they don't.)" I don't see what "random coincidence" has to do with it, there can be a
756.
by nonbel 8y ago
Bayes rule is just: Pr(H0|Data) = Pr(H0)Pr(Data|H0)/sum(Pr(H[0:n])Pr(Data|H[0:n])) If the data indicates you lower the probability of any hypothesis 0:n, it means the others all become more likely. There is no reason this has to be by
757.
by nonbel 8y ago
According to "view document size" from my firefox "web developer extension": www.reddit.com: 4285 kb old.reddit.com: 1888 kb i.reddit.com: 802 kb Im not 100% confident those stats are really getting everyth
758.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Nobody understand the brain well enough to do that yet." I'm fairly certain I understand the brain well enough to know our understanding of the brain is rudimentary and there is no reason to become attached to a vague pr
759.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Since it generally takes around 10 years to develop a drug, they made those choices before a lot of the alternatives had any data to back them up." Its possible to act on a "working hypothesis" without it becoming a
760.
by nonbel 8y ago
So some sort of critical mass was hit after x years and if that bet was wrong they are doomed for the next 20-40? Why didn't they wait until an actual definitive prediction came true?
761.
by nonbel 8y ago
Rather than speculate on alternative meanings, I'm just going to take the statement literally for now unless they show up to correct me.
762.
by nonbel 8y ago
I do understand what you are taking that quote to mean. It just seems like quite a stretch to me. Or at least, if you are correct, I would not trust myself to accurately interpret anything they say.
763.
by nonbel 8y ago
Ok, I get what you are saying now, but not how you could interpret this statement that way: > 'we’re beginning to think previously unthinkable thoughts like “what if the hypothesis the last 20 years of research was based on (beta am
764.
by nonbel 8y ago
What are you basing any of this on? How much benefit are you receiving for what cost? How do you know you aren't a "low abeta" individual?
765.
by nonbel 8y ago
What was unfunded, the amyloid hypothesis? If the hypothesis was not fully investigated, it may be ok to tentatively accept it anyway. But I don't see how dropping it later became an "unthinkable thought". Also, if you are ta
766.
by nonbel 8y ago
Whatever the details, they were diagnosing people and giving them "Alzheimers drugs" until they saw lack of amyloid-beta. To me it sounds like the "definitive evidence" is "telltale amyloid deposits": “If some
767.
by nonbel 8y ago
Fyi, I have no idea if your regimen (or any) of curcumin is good for you or not but amyloid beta may be protective in some way: >"Mice with excess beta-amyloid survived longer than the controls and had less bacteria in their brains.
768.
by nonbel 8y ago
Its not difficult to come up with mechanisms like that, not even difficult to come up with the idea and then get some evidence consistent with it. The key is to make sure everything works out quantitatively: https://www.ncbi.nlm.
769.
by nonbel 8y ago
I quickly found this, it looks like its based off a conference presentation but know there are older sources saying about the same: > "So far, the results have been dramatic. Among 4,000 people tested so far in the Imaging Dementia-
770.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Well, the hypothesis was tested on data... that data being drugs to reduce amyloid plaques, which have only recently been found to not work to ameliorate Alzheimer's." Right now I'm not even interested in how accura
771.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"we’re beginning to think previously unthinkable thoughts" What made it so previously unthinkable? AFAIK, there was a rough correlation between presence of these plaques and certain symptoms (by "rough" I mean some p
772.
by nonbel 8y ago
If by problem posed you mean the one with artifical constraints then sure. Once again, what does that have to do with "math of causation though".
773.
by nonbel 8y ago
This has nothing to do with causation. The solution to the first problem is this simple: if((a > 1 & b > 1 & c > 1) | (a < 1 & b < 1 & c < 1)){ event }else{ no_event } They introduc
774.
by nonbel 8y ago
And read the comments. People who seem to be biomedical researchers are claiming this isn't a big deal and all cell lines are essentially the same anyway, etc. Its like they have never had a quantitative thought in their lives. EDIT: A
775.
by nonbel 8y ago
Since cancer is considered "many different diseases" now, this is basically saying these people are studying the entirely wrong disease. Its like if someone told you they study measles but then you check what they are doing and se
776.
by nonbel 8y ago
Why do I need to sign up to something to use that software? It makes it seem like a scam. For example, look at this: https://www.zotero.org/ There I just download it...
777.
by nonbel 8y ago
Well hopefully one person actually writes the simulation, etc then calculates the hazard rate curve. I guarantee that once you understand how universal and simple the phenomenon is that's going here on you will be stunned at the ridicu
778.
by nonbel 8y ago
Imagine you keep flipping 10 coins, stopping each once it has come up heads. Eventually all will have come up heads. But if you do this a bunch of times and keep track of how many times you flipped the last coin, there will be a certain num
779.
by nonbel 8y ago
I mean almost the first thing that happened to me when I tried to use commercial stats software was being unable to reproduce a calculation manually. Eventually found out they had a known bug in their code that was left in for ~20 years and
780.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"The replication crisis is largely concerned with known problems, such as the lack of replication standards, non-availability of data, or p-hacking. One hitherto unknown problem is the potential for software companies’ changes to

More ›