Everyone I know in the US either drinks tap water or, if they’re picky, just uses Brita or similar filter for tap water.

Fair points. My use of “primary” was a poor choice; I meant something along the lines of “most common among individuals who aren’t philosophers, in my experience.”

Interesting take! Is lightning conscious, then? The idea of Thor isn’t too far off if so, haha.

Not everyone finds it persuasive, yeah. It’s an appeal to intuition that many people, though not all, have.

The online play is garbage. I played in H1 tournaments around the US back when it was good and would love for them to do it better than they did with their remake. The remake actually remade Halo 1 PC, not the Xbox version.

It’s FDA-approved for weight loss

Me

Yep. We find things humorous if they’re a benign violation of our expectations. That’s also why some folks judge others for their taste in humor; either they see something as not benign (e.g., people getting injured) or not a violation of expectations (e.g.,“stupid,” or wholly predictable).

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.

That’s not actually the abstract; it’s a piece from the discussion that someone pasted nicely with the first page in order to name and shame the authors. I looked at it in depth when I saw this circulate a little while ago.

I was just in a smaller city in Germany and flew back to the US after that. I look German and speak German. When paying with card, Germany felt exactly like the US. At every restaurant, the tip request automatically came up within the thing used to process your card, just like in the US.

It did, actually: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881500Q

That’s fascinating, and I agree with you. Why the US hates the idea of high-speed rail is beyond me, especially because they prided themselves so much on the rail system they put together earlier in their development. In any case, the US can’t do much of anything with its debt-to-GDP as high as it is right now. They can hardly keep from shutting the government down entirely because they won’t even agree to a government budget.

Also, the US is 9.14 million sq. km of land, whereas the EU is 4.29 million sq. km of land

EU is still smaller

But the main reason the US can’t handle the same stuff at a federal level that the EU can is population density. The US government can’t afford to nationalize rural healthcare given how rural the US can be–especially with their debt/GDP at the moment. Give it another few hundred years and the US might catch up to Europe in that respect.

deleted by creator

I’m thinking of shorting it. My friend is definitely shorting it.