Author Topic: vitamin C  (Read 1080 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4336
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2017, 01:38:39 PM »
I like being a little less sceptical at times, so as not to miss out. ...

This statement baffles me. It seems to suggest that there are benefits to ignorance.

Sceptical of government suggestions that eating real food (i.e. worrying about saturated fat, cholesterol and salt) that had ABSOLUTELY NO science behind them is what I am getting at.  This is not ignorance but active scepticism.

Only a data point of one, mind you, but this sixty five year old is active, robust and still sports a "six pack" despite god trying to kill him several times.

The US recommendations on diet have basically destroyed (world) health. 
"Our minds are not quite designed to understand how the world works, but, rather, to get out of trouble rapidly an have progeny."  Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Offline jt512

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
    • jt512
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2017, 10:48:58 PM »
I like being a little less sceptical at times, so as not to miss out. ...

This statement baffles me. It seems to suggest that there are benefits to ignorance.

Sceptical of government suggestions that eating real food (i.e. worrying about saturated fat, cholesterol and salt) that had ABSOLUTELY NO science behind them is what I am getting at.  This is not ignorance but active scepticism.

The US recommendations on diet have basically destroyed (world) health.

Actually, it's ideology.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11990
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2017, 01:52:44 PM »
I like being a little less sceptical at times, so as not to miss out. ...

This statement baffles me. It seems to suggest that there are benefits to ignorance.

Sceptical of government suggestions that eating real food (i.e. worrying about saturated fat, cholesterol and salt) that had ABSOLUTELY NO science behind them is what I am getting at.  This is not ignorance but active scepticism.

Only a data point of one, mind you, but this sixty five year old is active, robust and still sports a "six pack" despite god trying to kill him several times.

The US recommendations on diet have basically destroyed (world) health.
Yeah, this was all woo woo BS. This isn't "active skepticism", this is confirmation bias.
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4336
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2017, 09:56:10 AM »
I like being a little less sceptical at times, so as not to miss out. ...

This statement baffles me. It seems to suggest that there are benefits to ignorance.

Sceptical of government suggestions that eating real food (i.e. worrying about saturated fat, cholesterol and salt) that had ABSOLUTELY NO science behind them is what I am getting at.  This is not ignorance but active scepticism.

The US recommendations on diet have basically destroyed (world) health.

Actually, it's ideology.

I suppose coming to the conclusion that God doesn't exist due to multiple (and multiplying) anecdotes (at the age of 9) is ideology as well.
"Our minds are not quite designed to understand how the world works, but, rather, to get out of trouble rapidly an have progeny."  Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2117
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2017, 11:46:45 AM »
Yes, atheism is an ideological position.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11990
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2017, 12:31:47 PM »
I like being a little less sceptical at times, so as not to miss out. ...

This statement baffles me. It seems to suggest that there are benefits to ignorance.

Sceptical of government suggestions that eating real food (i.e. worrying about saturated fat, cholesterol and salt) that had ABSOLUTELY NO science behind them is what I am getting at.  This is not ignorance but active scepticism.

The US recommendations on diet have basically destroyed (world) health.

Actually, it's ideology.

I suppose coming to the conclusion that God doesn't exist due to multiple (and multiplying) anecdotes (at the age of 9) is ideology as well.
At the age of 9, and based on a bunch of anecdotes? Yup.

Also, Christians aren't stupid, they just believe in things that you don't. Personally, I would find a Christian that wasn't going all Linus Pauling on me a lot more trustworthy than an atheist who was.
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Online Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
  • I know you know I know
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2017, 02:57:26 PM »
The table clearly shows that there was no dose-response effect among subjects who remained ignorant of their treatment group.  The entire "effect" is in the "unblinded" group.

How could the people guess which one was the placebo?  Maybe some people could tell which was which because it actually had an effect on them, and the others couldn't because it had no effect on them.  For example, in a blinded trial of gluten-free bread, people with Celiac disease could tell which bread is gluten-free where regular people might not.
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

Offline st3class

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2017, 04:29:24 PM »
The table clearly shows that there was no dose-response effect among subjects who remained ignorant of their treatment group.  The entire "effect" is in the "unblinded" group.

How could the people guess which one was the placebo?  Maybe some people could tell which was which because it actually had an effect on them, and the others couldn't because it had no effect on them.  For example, in a blinded trial of gluten-free bread, people with Celiac disease could tell which bread is gluten-free where regular people might not.

My experience is that Vitamin C supplements have a pretty strong and distinctive taste, especially if you chew the tablet, as some people like to do.
It's always more complicated than that.

Offline Tatyana

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2389
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2017, 04:44:25 PM »
Hmmmm, I think this is the same researcher who did the Cochrane review.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4/full




Offline jt512

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
    • jt512
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2017, 04:49:57 PM »
The table clearly shows that there was no dose-response effect among subjects who remained ignorant of their treatment group.  The entire "effect" is in the "unblinded" group.

How could the people guess which one was the placebo?  Maybe some people could tell which was which because it actually had an effect on them, and the others couldn't because it had no effect on them.  For example, in a blinded trial of gluten-free bread, people with Celiac disease could tell which bread is gluten-free where regular people might not.

Many subjects admitted to opening the capsules and tasting the contents, and subjects who admitted that they tasted the contents were 3.6 times as likely to correctly identify which treatment they received.  Nonetheless, you are correct that we cannot be certain about cause and effect from these data.  It could be that subjects' guesses of which treatment they received were influenced by the duration of their colds.  This ended up being a messy trial, and it's not clear how much useful information we can get from it.

Offline jt512

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
    • jt512
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2017, 04:50:56 PM »
Hmmmm, I think this is the same researcher who did the Cochrane review.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4/full

Yeah, same guy.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2017, 09:53:11 PM »
The table clearly shows that there was no dose-response effect among subjects who remained ignorant of their treatment group.  The entire "effect" is in the "unblinded" group.

How could the people guess which one was the placebo?  Maybe some people could tell which was which because it actually had an effect on them, and the others couldn't because it had no effect on them.  For example, in a blinded trial of gluten-free bread, people with Celiac disease could tell which bread is gluten-free where regular people might not.

If you don't think one can tell the difference between gluten-free and non-gluten-free bread without the clue of intestinal distress, then I would guess you've not eaten one or the other.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline jt512

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
    • jt512
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2017, 10:01:02 PM »
Getting back to the review by Hemilä that Lonely Moa cited in his OP:  Hemilä reanalyzed two clinical trials to make his case that vitamin C reduces the duration of colds.  As I discussed here, in his reanalysis of Karlowski (1975), he disregarded the observed difference in treatment effect between blinded and unblinded subjects—a decision that is questionable at best.  In his reanalysis of the other trial, Anderson (1974), Hemilä's p-hacking is so blatant that it's comical. 

The Anderson (1974) trial had eight treatment arms, which differed in timing and dose of vitamin C and placebo.  I pulled the results from the original paper and made the plot, below, of average cold duration vs dose of vitamin C.  Each dot represents the result of one of the eight original treatment groups.  The black line is the result of a linear regression using all the data—all eight arms.  It's slope is not statistically significant, meaning that there is no good evidence that the dose of vitamin C affects the duration of subjects' colds. 

In his re-analysis, however, Hemilä included only the three arms represented by the red dots in the plot, which gave him the regression line depicted in red.  Naturally, his regression shows a significant relationship between dose of vitamin C and cold duration, because the three arms he chose all lie on a straight line.  It's amazing what you can achieve when you simply ignore the majority of the data, and select precisely those few data points that give you the result you want.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 02:57:40 AM by jt512 »

Online Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
  • I know you know I know
Re: vitamin C
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2017, 08:13:53 AM »
The table clearly shows that there was no dose-response effect among subjects who remained ignorant of their treatment group.  The entire "effect" is in the "unblinded" group.

How could the people guess which one was the placebo?  Maybe some people could tell which was which because it actually had an effect on them, and the others couldn't because it had no effect on them.  For example, in a blinded trial of gluten-free bread, people with Celiac disease could tell which bread is gluten-free where regular people might not.

If you don't think one can tell the difference between gluten-free and non-gluten-free bread without the clue of intestinal distress, then I would guess you've not eaten one or the other.

That would be an accurate statement.
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

 

personate-rain
personate-rain