Just an FYI - I was quite amused by Dr. Beaver at Oregon State who's mascot is, get ready for this, the Beaver. Oregon is also called The Beaver State and state animal.
As far as nuts go, eating a variety is important. Watch out for salted ones though.
I imagine she's tired of the jokes, but it could've been worse. Imagine if she'd been hired at Wake Forest, or UC Riverside. "Hi, I'm Dr. Beaver from...."
intake or serum levels except in cases of frank deficiency. The most recent study is another observational one, confounded to the point of irrelevance.
3. Similarly unimpressive findings at 12 weeks for serum calprotectin, IL-6, LBP, MDA. Maybe significance for myeloperoxidase and CD14, but there is no available evidence that reducing these causes reduced disease or death.
As for the benefits of protein and fiber, to the extent that there are any, these nutrients can be gotten from hundreds of sources.
So to pile on, the problem with these studies is not merely misrepresentation by the media and influencers, and not merely the poor quality of the trial designs and analyses, and not merely the inability to provide meaningful advice to patients or people based on them, and not merely that they are conflicted by financial support from interested parties like the Almond Board of California. It is also that they are funded and conducted in the first place. Shame on NIH for funding them, and good luck to the 3 Musketeers Jay, Marty and Vinay as they try to clean things up.
Eat what you want. Not too much. Go for a walk. Spend all your remaining time and energy on other things.
Omigosh, yes, totally agree that my post was not as critical as it could've been.
The clinical relevance issue you raise is one that I should've included because it's not that hard to unpack.
At the same time, I left out a bunch of statistical problems because (a) they'd take too too long to explain in plain English and (b) the study was doomed from the outset by its design (meaning, as you put it, it shouldn't have been run in the first place).
One of the biggest problems is that for most of the analyses, the researchers only report p values and it's not always clear what they did. In some cases it looks like they ran independent-measures analyses on RM data.
Oh, and if you play the significance game, you have to play by whatever rules you pick for it. They assume the conventional .05 alpha, but treat a p value of .07 for waist circumference as indicating an effect. At the same time, they ignore the fact that the cracker group was heavier (p = .155) and had a higher BMI (p = .15) than the almond group. If you're viewing a .05 alpha flexibly, why not adjust for weight/BMI, since .15-ish is pretty close to that alpha too?
I happen to have a younger brother who abandoned all conventional news media for TikTok alone, reasoning that the traditional media made "too may factual errors" and he was fed up.
On a more serious note, I have been suggesting far & wide the fact that you need not ordinarily venture further than a few posts beyond the home post of SubStack to run face-to-face with the most outrageous, organized anti-vaccine disinformation campaigns ever imagined, generally beginning with some form of "BREAKING!" to draw your attention. If you follow it, you will generally find a link to a legitimate study in the NLM, followed by a complete mischaracterization - which is a euphemism for "outright lie" - for the content of the study, and I can only presume a reasonable belief that no one will actually click the link to read the actual study. Now, I am no purposeful "hardball" hitter in these situations, but when I see comments that have relied solely on the lies of a physician poster, I do feel compelled to copy the conclusion of the actual study, add a few more studies corroborating the conclusion of the original, point out the deception, and depart. Generally, it doesn't take long for the responses to roll in - generally grossly vulgar, focusing on my "stupid name," my worthless medical degree, etc., yet never once addressing what I have posted. For example, a study from India that describes excess deaths among vaccinated elderly men with comorbidities (that failed to mention the authors belief in a correlation with the monsoon season & other weather-related events in India); miscarriage in vaccinated women (a study conducted in rats alone); fertility issues in vaccinated women (without mentioning the study was specifically about a timing algorithm that mitigated any issues); and a raging over a study that mRNA had "invaded" DNA (Karolinska Institute in Sweden, authors of the experimental paper, debunked the claim everywhere). The deceit is endless & occurs every day of the week.
I do not have a clue as to a reasonable remedy, other than to suggest that we address the issue in our own little corners of the world - and I am sincerely grateful that you do a better job than me - but it is quite discouraging.
Thank you. I'm so glad you're resisting the constant firehose of anti-vaccine misinformation. I can't think of any better strategy than to continue doing so, from wherever where we stand, and to push our political leaders to respect the science.
There will always be people who think the earth is flat or, like your younger brother, treat TikTok as an encyclopedia. We may not be able to change their minds, but by speaking up we contribute to a public discourse that fosters critical thinking and scientific literacy among younger people. Hopefully, as they grow up, they'll be less inclined to perpetuate the sort of ad hominem crap you've been experiencing, less likely to vote for someone who'd appoint anti-vaccine advocates to run federal health agencies, and more likely to carry forward the kind of discourse we help sustain.
There's no eugenics for critical thinking (or civil expression), but we can help strengthen the environments that support them. I appreciate what you do in that regard.
Do you have a favorite AI for the most accurate medical information? I use Chatgpt but am constantly arguing with it because it provides incorrect or biased information.
Great question! I avoid AI because, at least at the moment, the chatbots draw from a mix of accurate, inaccurate, and biased information.
AI seems to be getting better at providing answers that distinguish between what experts agree on vs. what's uncertain or debated. But I still see the kinds of problems you described, because of how the initial input is handled
I personally rely on websites like those of the Mayo Clinic, WebMD, and Healthline. They have good reputations for accuracy. I like to compare what they say about particular issues, because one website sometimes adds information that's either lacking or unclear in the other one. Plus, when they agree (which usually happens) it gives me more confidence about their accuracy.
The CDC and other HHS organizations are also great, but for the moment I would view their websites cautiously, given that content on certain topics is being changed or removed in ways that most experts disagree with.
Thank you for your insight. I still find it gives semi valuable information but you have to know the topic you’re researching and keep questioning the information it gives you. I don’t have much faith in many of the other websites like Webmd, Mayo Clinic and Health line because so many of their studies are funded by the pharmaceutical companies and if you research in depth you find that the studies don’t always align with what they say. It seems almost impossible to get unbiased , real information especially because like you said they are scrubbing and changing information so I guess we just do our best and I refer to Substack articles written by people I trust!
It seems there's no good substitute for a critical evaluation of the actual studies referenced by the websites you've cited. As for AI-facilitated searches, we need to remain skeptical and independently verify. Then, there's that ever-present risk of AI hallucinations and bogus references. My favorite AI tool is the one that powers PubMed MESH searches.
Just an FYI - I was quite amused by Dr. Beaver at Oregon State who's mascot is, get ready for this, the Beaver. Oregon is also called The Beaver State and state animal.
As far as nuts go, eating a variety is important. Watch out for salted ones though.
I imagine she's tired of the jokes, but it could've been worse. Imagine if she'd been hired at Wake Forest, or UC Riverside. "Hi, I'm Dr. Beaver from...."
intake or serum levels except in cases of frank deficiency. The most recent study is another observational one, confounded to the point of irrelevance.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/27697061.2024.2401055
Same for Mg++ .
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831322001533 (see forest plots which all cross 1)
2. Mean change in the study by 12 weeks was ~5 mg/dl for cholesterol, LDL-C and triglycerides, and the error bars overlap. Not clinically relevant.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531725000636?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
3. Similarly unimpressive findings at 12 weeks for serum calprotectin, IL-6, LBP, MDA. Maybe significance for myeloperoxidase and CD14, but there is no available evidence that reducing these causes reduced disease or death.
As for the benefits of protein and fiber, to the extent that there are any, these nutrients can be gotten from hundreds of sources.
So to pile on, the problem with these studies is not merely misrepresentation by the media and influencers, and not merely the poor quality of the trial designs and analyses, and not merely the inability to provide meaningful advice to patients or people based on them, and not merely that they are conflicted by financial support from interested parties like the Almond Board of California. It is also that they are funded and conducted in the first place. Shame on NIH for funding them, and good luck to the 3 Musketeers Jay, Marty and Vinay as they try to clean things up.
Eat what you want. Not too much. Go for a walk. Spend all your remaining time and energy on other things.
Thanks for posting!
Omigosh, yes, totally agree that my post was not as critical as it could've been.
The clinical relevance issue you raise is one that I should've included because it's not that hard to unpack.
At the same time, I left out a bunch of statistical problems because (a) they'd take too too long to explain in plain English and (b) the study was doomed from the outset by its design (meaning, as you put it, it shouldn't have been run in the first place).
One of the biggest problems is that for most of the analyses, the researchers only report p values and it's not always clear what they did. In some cases it looks like they ran independent-measures analyses on RM data.
Oh, and if you play the significance game, you have to play by whatever rules you pick for it. They assume the conventional .05 alpha, but treat a p value of .07 for waist circumference as indicating an effect. At the same time, they ignore the fact that the cracker group was heavier (p = .155) and had a higher BMI (p = .15) than the almond group. If you're viewing a .05 alpha flexibly, why not adjust for weight/BMI, since .15-ish is pretty close to that alpha too?
Abuse of researcher degrees of freedom....
I think you'll find that your "three Musketeers" are not the characters you think they are.
I happen to have a younger brother who abandoned all conventional news media for TikTok alone, reasoning that the traditional media made "too may factual errors" and he was fed up.
On a more serious note, I have been suggesting far & wide the fact that you need not ordinarily venture further than a few posts beyond the home post of SubStack to run face-to-face with the most outrageous, organized anti-vaccine disinformation campaigns ever imagined, generally beginning with some form of "BREAKING!" to draw your attention. If you follow it, you will generally find a link to a legitimate study in the NLM, followed by a complete mischaracterization - which is a euphemism for "outright lie" - for the content of the study, and I can only presume a reasonable belief that no one will actually click the link to read the actual study. Now, I am no purposeful "hardball" hitter in these situations, but when I see comments that have relied solely on the lies of a physician poster, I do feel compelled to copy the conclusion of the actual study, add a few more studies corroborating the conclusion of the original, point out the deception, and depart. Generally, it doesn't take long for the responses to roll in - generally grossly vulgar, focusing on my "stupid name," my worthless medical degree, etc., yet never once addressing what I have posted. For example, a study from India that describes excess deaths among vaccinated elderly men with comorbidities (that failed to mention the authors belief in a correlation with the monsoon season & other weather-related events in India); miscarriage in vaccinated women (a study conducted in rats alone); fertility issues in vaccinated women (without mentioning the study was specifically about a timing algorithm that mitigated any issues); and a raging over a study that mRNA had "invaded" DNA (Karolinska Institute in Sweden, authors of the experimental paper, debunked the claim everywhere). The deceit is endless & occurs every day of the week.
I do not have a clue as to a reasonable remedy, other than to suggest that we address the issue in our own little corners of the world - and I am sincerely grateful that you do a better job than me - but it is quite discouraging.
Thank you. I'm so glad you're resisting the constant firehose of anti-vaccine misinformation. I can't think of any better strategy than to continue doing so, from wherever where we stand, and to push our political leaders to respect the science.
There will always be people who think the earth is flat or, like your younger brother, treat TikTok as an encyclopedia. We may not be able to change their minds, but by speaking up we contribute to a public discourse that fosters critical thinking and scientific literacy among younger people. Hopefully, as they grow up, they'll be less inclined to perpetuate the sort of ad hominem crap you've been experiencing, less likely to vote for someone who'd appoint anti-vaccine advocates to run federal health agencies, and more likely to carry forward the kind of discourse we help sustain.
There's no eugenics for critical thinking (or civil expression), but we can help strengthen the environments that support them. I appreciate what you do in that regard.
Do you have a favorite AI for the most accurate medical information? I use Chatgpt but am constantly arguing with it because it provides incorrect or biased information.
Great question! I avoid AI because, at least at the moment, the chatbots draw from a mix of accurate, inaccurate, and biased information.
AI seems to be getting better at providing answers that distinguish between what experts agree on vs. what's uncertain or debated. But I still see the kinds of problems you described, because of how the initial input is handled
I personally rely on websites like those of the Mayo Clinic, WebMD, and Healthline. They have good reputations for accuracy. I like to compare what they say about particular issues, because one website sometimes adds information that's either lacking or unclear in the other one. Plus, when they agree (which usually happens) it gives me more confidence about their accuracy.
The CDC and other HHS organizations are also great, but for the moment I would view their websites cautiously, given that content on certain topics is being changed or removed in ways that most experts disagree with.
Thank you for your insight. I still find it gives semi valuable information but you have to know the topic you’re researching and keep questioning the information it gives you. I don’t have much faith in many of the other websites like Webmd, Mayo Clinic and Health line because so many of their studies are funded by the pharmaceutical companies and if you research in depth you find that the studies don’t always align with what they say. It seems almost impossible to get unbiased , real information especially because like you said they are scrubbing and changing information so I guess we just do our best and I refer to Substack articles written by people I trust!
It seems there's no good substitute for a critical evaluation of the actual studies referenced by the websites you've cited. As for AI-facilitated searches, we need to remain skeptical and independently verify. Then, there's that ever-present risk of AI hallucinations and bogus references. My favorite AI tool is the one that powers PubMed MESH searches.
Sunscreen is not good for your body any type.
Read @zaidkdahhaj
https://zaidkdahhaj.substack.com/p/all-skin-types-can-effortlessly-avoid
Certainly beer would not be any better for sun protection (plus, apparently, it attracts insects).
Thank you for your analysis and insights. If anyone is curious about the study's lead author:
https://health.oregonstate.edu/sites/health.oregonstate.edu/files/2025-02/cv-laura-beaver-2024-02-15.pdf
Nice analysis and takedown, but not critical enough IMO.
1. There remain no rigorous RCTs showing benefit on health or mortality of increased vitamin E