canihasaccount

Not everyone finds it persuasive, yeah. It's an appeal to intuition that many people, though not all, have.

Chomsky is considered one of the founders of cognitive science. He was the only person who was able to argue away Skinner's conceptualization of language. Were it not for him, behaviorism may still have been dominant.

The online play is garbage. I played in H1 tournaments around the US back when it was good and would love for them to do it better than they did with their remake. The remake actually remade Halo 1 PC, not the Xbox version.

It's FDA-approved for weight loss

Me

Yep. We find things humorous if they're a benign violation of our expectations. That's also why some folks judge others for their taste in humor; either they see something as not benign (e.g., people getting injured) or not a violation of expectations (e.g.,"stupid," or wholly predictable).

Sorry, but this makes clear that you aren't in science. You should avoid trying to shit on studies if you don't know how to interpret them. Both of the things you mentioned actually support the existence of a true effect.

First, if the treatment has an effect, you would expect a greater rate of relapse after the treatment is removed, provided that it treats a more final pathway rather than the cause: People in the placebo group have already been relapsing at the typical rate, and people receiving treatment--whose disease has been ramping up behind the dam of a medication preventing it from showing--are then expected to relapse at a higher rate after treatment is removed. The second sixth-month period was after cessation of the curcumin or place; it was a follow-up for treatment-as-usual.

Second, people drop out of a study nonrandomly for two main reasons: side effects and perceived lack of treatment efficacy. The placebo doesn't have side effects, so when you have a greater rate of dropout in your placebo group, that implies the perceived treatment efficacy was lower. In other words, the worst placebo participants are likely the extra dropouts in that group, and including them would not only provide more degrees of freedom, it would theoretically strengthen the effect.

This is basic clinical trials research knowledge.

Again, I have no skin in the game here. I don't take curcumin, nor would I ever. I do care about accurate depictions of research. I'm a STEM professor at an R1 with three active federal grants funding my research. The meme is inaccurate.

Why are you completely ignoring the second paper I linked, which doesn't suffer from any of the limitations you mentioned?

The meme says no trial was successful. Any trial with any small difference is a successful trial.

I'm not saying the study is good, just that the meme isn't true.

Also, you can level almost every single one of those criticisms against many studies for SSRIs and they'd hit just as hard. The exception being sample size.

Not true:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032714003620

https://www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565%2806%2900800-7/fulltext

I found more, too.

Edit: I have no skin in this game. I don't take turmeric and won't ever because of the risk of lead. I'm just pointing out that the meme is inaccurate. The person who replied to me pointed out some flaws in the first study (not the second), but none of the flaws mentioned makes the meme accurate. Even the shitty first study I linked found a significant condition difference in its primary endpoint at 8 weeks. Yeah, it's got flaws (which the second doesn't), but a successful trial with heavy limitations and conflicts of interest is nonetheless a successful trial, making this meme inaccurate. The second study I linked is stronger.

Also, the limitations in the first trial are standard for many clinical trials. For example:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsr.12201

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X14001266

I could list 100 more with the same limitations of the first study I linked above. High dropout, small sample sizes, funding by an industry with a conflict of interest etc. are standard for clinical trial studies.

Ich lebe in Amerika. Ich lerne Deutsche sprechen, aber das kostet Geld. Vielleicht wollen die Migranten Deutsche lernen, haben aber nicht das Geld dafür?

Sorry if the above is poorly worded; I'm still new to the language. My point is that there are lots of reasons that someone might not know a language well, including a lack of money, or a lack of time from needing to work full time to support one's migrant family on a low wage.

Mexican immigrants to the US are wonderful, but their culture is very different from non-Hispanic US culture. I don't expect them to learn English. They work like 60 hours per week to support their families. Like the person you're replying to has said, though, their children learn English and integrate into, but also uniquely contribute to, US culture. Rather than expecting the first-generation immigrants to learn English, I've learned Spanish specifically to speak with them. It's not like there are many more immigrants to Germany than there are immigrants to the US--even discounting the fact that the US has always been a country of immigrants, Hispanic and Latino/a/e Americans (the majority of which are Mexican Americans) are expected to exceed 50% of all Americans within a couple of decades. In some states, they are already the majority.

Diversity is a good thing, and we shouldn't require immigrants to become like us culturally or linguistically before accepting them.

That's not actually the abstract; it's a piece from the discussion that someone pasted nicely with the first page in order to name and shame the authors. I looked at it in depth when I saw this circulate a little while ago.