Thu, Jul-09-20, 23:36
|
Senior Member
Posts: 253
|
|
Plan: <20g when motivated
Stats: 229/219/145
BF:40%/40.6%/less
Progress: 12%
Location: France
|
|
Teaser, you have some great thoughts, and indeed there is lots of science that needs to be done.
I am still extremely skeptical of these results because science was not performed. Science is more of a method, and not necessarily just a production of results. This article didn't even follow it's own protocol. It's got all kinds of red flags saying that this is part of what makes 2/3s of current scientific papers non-reproducible.
What annoys me is that I really STRUGGLE to get my papers published. Peer review regularly wipes me on the pavement like sh** stuck on the bottom of their shoes. I would never be able to get a paper like this published. I've been told in the past that two (or more) sets of scales are being used in peer review. I didn't want to believe it (cuz like previously stated, I get the hard end of peer review, but it's consistent across time... I'm really good friends with pavement.), but I have to start believing now (especially after the behaviour of NEJM and Lancet in relation to COVID.... utter nonsense).
Currently, most peer review is single-blinded. I.e. the authors of the papers are visible to the reviewers, who remain anonymous. I think it should be the other way around. For the purposes of the review process, author information should be removed from the manuscript, resulting in an anonymous manuscript. And reviewers, faced with an anonymous manuscript, work under the knowledge that their names, corrections and what they impose on the paper will be fully disclosed at the time of publication.
Anyway blah blah. rant rant rant. Science is broken.
I see no reason why a good nap after a dose of saturated fat wouldn't help repair a brain and keep it younger. Something to look into.
|