dagblog - Comments for " UArts students protest professor Camille Paglia for comments on transgender people, sexual assault survivors"

You are the one who is

rmrd0000 — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 13:09:40 +0000

In reply to No that's not what happens.

You are the one who is confused. In the medical field, for example, consensus papers and guidelines are the norm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_consensus

In academic centers teaching is geared to applying the best method for each patient. There is also analysis of where medicine is failing, the higher maternal mortality among black women is one such area receiving attention. The reason most studies are ignored by experts in most fields is that they don’t meet the patient inclusion criteria or statistical rigor that is considered acceptable.

In your own words:

Serious researchers aren't wasting their time reading every published article in their field. They know who the serious researchers are in their field and they keep up with their work and ignore the rest.It's not a problem for the advancement of science. It's only a problem for those of us who aren't experts in the field, don't know who the major players are, and just want to keep up with what's going on.

The scientists are focused on science. They don’t relay on the Journal of Unreproducible Events.

Cancer mortality is decreasing

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2018-rate-of-deaths-from-cancer-continues-decline.html

Cardiovascular mortality is decreasing

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5268076/

This is because, as I said, scientists work to replicate studies to prove a therapy works in a variety of setting. When new therapies are found useful, consensus papers are written by organizations to put the new therapy in proper perspective in current medical practice. Over time, the new therapy may be added to national guidelines for practicing physicians.

Of particular note in cardiovascular disease, there is concern that the decline in mortality may have hit a plateau . Research to determine if the plateau is real and why it might be happening is underway. Scientists are on top of things.

Edit to add:

Here is an overview of the new drug approval process at the FDA

https://www.fda.gov/forpatients/approvals/drugs/ucm405622.htm

Of note, critics note that the FDA, like the FAA and Boeing, May put to much trust in the data they receive on safety issues like side effects from the drug companies. Once drugs are released, there are medical scientists looking at long term effects.

Everybody has to take off

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 07:40:20 +0000

In reply to That is a dodge. Let’s take a

Everybody has to take off their shoes - does that really make us more safe?
Maybe transgenders shouldn't have to take off their shoes.
Should we get them a pillow?

Transgenders "may' have to undergo a more invasive body search.
As do people in wheelchairs, people with metal in their legs, people with medical implants like pacemakers,
other less ordinary attributes.
They took away our babies baby forks cuz they had a bit of metal (though obviously babyproof)
while smokers were allowed to take on lighters no problem - thanks Marlboro lobbyists!!!
There are nearly 900 million airline passengers a year in the US going through these machines.
Yes, TSA will get better in dealing with transgender.
But somewhere someone should remember that the whole reason for these inconveniences
is to keep us from being blown to fucking bits, and if terrorists are willing to shove
devices up their ass, it's really hard to automate screening so it doesn't inconvenience anyone,
and by default and definition, screening looks for things "out of the ordinary".
With machine learning/AI-deep learning algorithms, that can be improved,
but when we're talking about interpreting scans, it's difficult (and part of the complaint
is about the scans being too intrusive, so it's a conflicting set of goals).

As you've pointed out before,

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 22:31:17 +0000

In reply to Anyone over the age of 10 who

As you've pointed out before, I'm only 7, or at least act that way, so have a few years leeway left.

Here, for example, is an

ocean-kat — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 22:20:44 +0000

In reply to Twin studies are going to be

Here, for example, is an assessment of the impact of genetics vs environment in various forms of cancer. It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine

Did you bother to read that study or did you just google a link? From your link:

We combined data on 44,788 pairs of twins At least one cancer occurred in 10,803 persons among 9512 pairs of twins.

The transgender study you linked had 43 pairs of twins. Do you see the difference?

No that's not what happens.

ocean-kat — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 22:00:36 +0000

In reply to The twin study of the

No that's not what happens. You have this grade school view of science that they teach the little children. Studies are rarely replicated. It's expensive and time consuming to do a study and most researchers are interested in doing their own original work, not repeating the work of others. If a study is critiqued at all usually it's due to flaws in it's design. But as I pointed out below most studies are simply ignored.

Anyone over the age of 10 who

ocean-kat — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:52:55 +0000

In reply to First they came for the hairy

Anyone over the age of 10 who is incontinent needs to go. Of course I'm only 62. 10 or 15 years from now I might have a different opinion.

I've read that there's a

ocean-kat — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:38:12 +0000

In reply to . Yeah, the whole scientific

I've read that there's a trope among college professors, "Publish or die." Having articles or studies published is necessary for advancement. Some professors are researchers who teach a bit on the side. Others are just teachers. They may be great teachers but they don't do original research. So they come up with a hypothesis and design a study that takes as little work as possible and get it published somewhere. Or they do some research and publish an article on it.

This is both a problem and not a problem. Serious researches aren't wasting their time reading every published article in their field. They know who the serious researchers are in their field and they keep up with their work and ignore the rest.It's not a problem for the advancement of science. It's only a problem for those of us who aren't experts in the field, don't know who the major players are, and just want to keep up with what's going on.

First they came for the hairy

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:07:00 +0000

In reply to The only thing that would

First they came for the hairy armpits - and I didn't say anything because I didn't have hairy armpits (sorry, Mom!). Then they came for the bald men and I didn't say anything because, well, I ain't bald. By the time they came for the incontinent snorers, well, there was no one to stand up for me... fair game you say? At least I held out til round #3.

The study did its job in that

rmrd0000 — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:03:05 +0000

In reply to It's not going to be the gold

The study did its job in that scientists are asking why they got the observed result. They acknowledge the impact of mental effort. That is what scientists do.

The twin study of the

rmrd0000 — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:00:39 +0000

In reply to Twin studies are good if

The twin study of the astronaut and his twin is going to be the gold standard because there are not going to be tons of similar situations. When newer twin studies are done, they will be compared to prior twin studies. If they are disagreements, scientists will take a deeper dive into the studies to see why there were differences. New studies asking different questions about the influence of genetics will be asked using different sets of twins. Twin studies play a unique role.

Edit to add:

The major reason that we know scientific studies are flawed is because other scientists perform studies to verify the results. The fact that the study can’t be replicated leads to asking other questions. If the original study can be replicated, scientists ask what can be done to make things even better? Science is always asking questions.