in a made up language

Aren’t all languages made up?

Any NIH-funded research must be made open access one year after its publication date. NIH publishes the accepted manuscript in PubMed at the one-year mark. Unlike NIH, (last I checked) NSF doesn’t strictly require it, but you won’t be getting NSF funding unless you say you’re going to make the resulting papers freely available somehow (e.g., preprints, paying for open access, etc.). Not sure about DOE/DOD/etc. funded-articles.

The majority of federally funded research in the US is made open access. You might not realize it because news outlets typically report on brand-new articles, which haven’t hit the one-year mark for open access yet.

Blue light is important for night vision, so either of those options would lead to less of an ability to see well after sunset.

No, glia support neurons; they do things like redirecting blood flow to more-active-than-usual neurons, mylenate axons, etc. They wouldn’t form a mesh around neurons’ photoreceptors the same way they do neurons’ somas and axons. What the article describes is that glia actually are critical at allowing for color vision during the day and night vision at night, since on land we’d get too much blue light to see color with much fidelity were it not for glia, and a similar filtration process helps us see at night. It’s not that it’s not as bad as it could be, it’s actually that vision is better this way (barring one small blind spot outside of our fovea–which, being outside of the fovea, would have low acuity anyways).

This arrangement actually optimizes color vision in the daytime and night vision at night. Evolution selected for the correct arrangement for those of us living on land:

https://theconversation.com/look-your-eyes-are-wired-backwards-heres-why-38319

Methods sections are limited in word count, and if a lab is hoping to get a few more papers out of a paradigm, they may be intentionally terse. There’s a big difference between how we write protocols in-house and how we write limited-length methods sections.

ONLYOFFICE (sorry about the caps, poor name choice IMO) has even better docx compatibility, and its source code is open

A bit of an exaggeration, sure. But only a bit. The lay summary of the article I referenced states the following:

Venkataraman et al. find that the paper commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper: leaving out important papers, including irrelevant papers, using duplicate papers, mis-coding their societies, getting the wrong values for “big” versus “small” game, and many others.

“commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper,” and, “completely incorrect,” aren’t very different.

This study this meme is based on is completely incorrect and should be retracted. Here’s a lay summary of its issues:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/03/04/new-paper-debunks-the-prevalence-of-women-hunting-in-early-societies/

And the published article detailing the problems with that study’s issues:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497

(⌐■ ͜ʖ■)

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(06)00800-7/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.

deleted by creator