What field of research are you in?
I didn't realize that I said I was in any field, nor did I realize I was incapable of having knowledge because I lacked a degree, job title or lab coat?
I am just a solid pubmed ninja who was taught to read and write, add and subtract by the second grade. No implied qualifications here. Question away.
But if that is your thing - the guy who wrote that passage has all of the above, and his first citation was written by a guy who has had more than a dozen peer-reviewed research papers on vitamin D published in the last 4 years alone.
Bull**** like this is exactly what I want to eliminate. Online "researchers" with zero textbook knowledge find crap on reddit and treat that as a replacement for actual research. Peer-reviewed journal data gets tested and if it's found to be false, it gets corrected or retracted. Reddit isn't held to the same standard, so you can keep saying the source doesn't matter all you want, but it doesn't make it true.
And yes there are some greedy doctors out there that cared more about money than what the actual data said. Their decisions were not based on a credible source; it was based on cash. That doesn't mean the entire system is broken.
First off, textbook knowledge isn't all that important. There is nothing in any textbook, anywhere, that was not first discovered by someone in the real world who had lacked the knowledge prior to their discovery. The information in text books is useful, but not a prerequisite to knowledge.
Second, why would you want to eliminate the sharing of any ideas at all? Right, wrong or otherwise? People should be able to do their research as best they can and learn. Improving the quality of the research is a valid goal, but to eliminate it in any form does not achieve that goal.
Third - the irony can be seen within your own posts. On one you are saying that you have seen plenty of research that was misrepresented and YOU disagreed with the presentation from the guy in the lab coat, and then you turn around and talk about the virtues of "peer reviewed journals"?
And you are completely ignoring the fact that the so-called higher standard of peer-reviewed journals has been flawed for a long time. There are countless skewed views in the peer reviewed journals based on financial interests of researchers and journals. This is why there are now efforts to register studies. There are cases where doctors went to those very journals and saw 36 studies showing a drug was safe and 3 showing there was a possibility for serious side effects (as an example). The doctors, rightfully, would have sided with the preponderance of evidence and weighted the safety of 36 trials over the negatives found in 3 trials...until they find out 30 studies did not get published because they didn't support the desired outcome.
Further - you want to question the highly qualified individual because he is on reddit, but he made claims and provided citations - yet you have merely made claims on here. Check his work. Feel free.
And I KNOW there are citations for your stance out there. I have seen them so I'm not even disagreeing, just bringing in both sides as it isn't cut and dry. So I feel like we agree and we are arguing anyway, so I'm sorry if I did something to rub you the wrong way. You're a smart guy and I respect your input and frankly, welcome your skepticism and appreciatethe debate. You can certainly help me learn.
As far as the greedy doctors - a lot were duped. I have a grandmother who is on opioids I fought with her doctor quite a bit over it. My aunt didn't want her to be in pain (not that I did either) and from the interactions I've seen with the doctor I would say she sincerely was doing what she thought was right.
Drug companies spent massive amounts of money to dupe doctors. They dont have time to assimilate and research and get everything they see in a day. They can barely spend time with their patients. Some doctors were probably just flat out wrong, some doctors were greedy and the manufacturers were pushing falsehoods.
The credible data the doctors relied on was from the pharma companies who conducted scientific studies and got peer-review and FDA approval. And they took that and made not-so-credible claims in addition to and doctors didn't probably always realize.
In the end - I do agree that taking something on reddit as fact and as your basis for knowledge without realizing it is an opinion can be treacherous. But that is NOT what I was doing. I've read a number of Vitamin D related studies...and organizing them and citing them takes an enormous amount of time. I found that on reddit and it did a really good job of summarizing what I would have pointed out, and actually added some things I hadn't considered. So, regardless of the fact is it on reddit or on a crumpled up piece of paper in the gutter and thrown away, or whatever -- it is well written, matches the data in the peer reviewed journals, is simplified, and has citations.
I recognized it as good because I HAD previous knowledge, not because the article itself was the basis for my knowledge.
And with a bit of digging I found that the person who wrote it is, in fact, highly qualified and his citations even more so.
Never discount an idea simply because of its source, and never accept an idea merely because of its source.
That may be on reddit and there may be a ton of junk on there...I get that...but that was a gem in a pile of crap.
