Affiliations: Department of Health and Human Performance, School of Health Sciences, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, United States of America, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States of America
That doesn’t sound like a quack to me.
You can feel free to check on the legitimacy of the multiple other authors in the peer-reviewed study too:
Obviously, I provided no evidence of my contention. Nor did I intend to. But there is plenty of crap published in peer-reviewed journals, and quacks all graduated from medical school.
I made no good argument at all, so it takes nothing to counter it. But an argument from authority is still a bad counterargument.
Um what? Have I misunderstood what that term means for my entire life? I would say that the vast majority of “quacks” have no medical expertise whatsoever.
You’re both right. A quack is a charlatan and pretender. I’ve seen it applied to legitimate MDs who have “jumped the shark” and started giving bogus medical advice, so I thought that’s what it meant.
There are in fact MDs who use bogus tests and find Lyme or babesiosis as the cause of unrelated woes in the majority of their patients. Those were who I was referencing.
My parent comment is so downvoted that it’s unlikely many will see this.
I am a scientist by training and am inherently skeptical of many scientific studies. Science progresses through the accumulation of many results and the survival of models which explains them. Individual papers mean little but will contribute toward the broader understanding only if they are corroborated over time.
I made a flippant remark about this paper because I am suspicious of the team reporting to find plastics everywhere. Since I made a stink, I bothered to look into the paper. The study is only slightly shoddy. The conclusion that plastics were found in all samples would be better stated as “found at levels higher than the blanks.” They found plastics in every field blank tested (Table 1) and especially for the second location where they used a more sophisticated device than Petri dishes.
I think Table 2 is slightly off because they subtracted the plastic count from the blanks, but they didn’t put in negative counts when the blanks were higher. For example, at the first location there were as many blue plastics in total in the blanks as in the test samples. But they cited a net 1 in the tests because that corresponding blank didn’t have blue plastic. That seems invalid because they aren’t accounting for the noise in detecting 0-3 pieces randomly across all samples if it is coming from environmental or lab contamination.
Also, fume hoods don’t keep contaminants out of the samples. They keep samples out of the rest of the lab.
Overall, there were more plastic pieces in the blowhole samples than the field blanks. There’s something to it. Is it actually relevant to animal health? TBD.
They’re finding plastics everywhere like a quack doctor finds Lyme disease.
This is the lead author of the study:
That doesn’t sound like a quack to me.
You can feel free to check on the legitimacy of the multiple other authors in the peer-reviewed study too:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/authors?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309377
Obviously, I provided no evidence of my contention. Nor did I intend to. But there is plenty of crap published in peer-reviewed journals, and quacks all graduated from medical school.
I made no good argument at all, so it takes nothing to counter it. But an argument from authority is still a bad counterargument.
Um what? Have I misunderstood what that term means for my entire life? I would say that the vast majority of “quacks” have no medical expertise whatsoever.
That is what I have always heard partially defines a quack as well.
You’re both right. A quack is a charlatan and pretender. I’ve seen it applied to legitimate MDs who have “jumped the shark” and started giving bogus medical advice, so I thought that’s what it meant.
There are in fact MDs who use bogus tests and find Lyme or babesiosis as the cause of unrelated woes in the majority of their patients. Those were who I was referencing.
I never suggested you made an argument, so….
It’s ok squiddy isn’t a mod in this channel
I’m not a mod in 99% of communities (not channels) on Lemmy. What’s your point?
I only disagree with him occasionally, and whether he is a mod or not has nothing to do with it.
you’re probably wearing a bunch of it
My parent comment is so downvoted that it’s unlikely many will see this.
I am a scientist by training and am inherently skeptical of many scientific studies. Science progresses through the accumulation of many results and the survival of models which explains them. Individual papers mean little but will contribute toward the broader understanding only if they are corroborated over time.
I made a flippant remark about this paper because I am suspicious of the team reporting to find plastics everywhere. Since I made a stink, I bothered to look into the paper. The study is only slightly shoddy. The conclusion that plastics were found in all samples would be better stated as “found at levels higher than the blanks.” They found plastics in every field blank tested (Table 1) and especially for the second location where they used a more sophisticated device than Petri dishes.
I think Table 2 is slightly off because they subtracted the plastic count from the blanks, but they didn’t put in negative counts when the blanks were higher. For example, at the first location there were as many blue plastics in total in the blanks as in the test samples. But they cited a net 1 in the tests because that corresponding blank didn’t have blue plastic. That seems invalid because they aren’t accounting for the noise in detecting 0-3 pieces randomly across all samples if it is coming from environmental or lab contamination.
Also, fume hoods don’t keep contaminants out of the samples. They keep samples out of the rest of the lab.
Overall, there were more plastic pieces in the blowhole samples than the field blanks. There’s something to it. Is it actually relevant to animal health? TBD.