The steps of a failed pet intervention: 1. Interesting theory 2. Promising rodent results 3. Encouraging small trials 4. Discouraging large trials 5. Depressing systematic review(s) 6. Theory dead 7. No 8. IT WORKED IN RATS 9. YOU WON'T CRUSH MY HOPE 10. THEORY WILL NEVER DIE
-
Show this thread
-
Examples: the "autism causes vaccines" 127+ study page that actually is a bunch of non-sequiturs and doesn't contain even one study on autism and vaccines in people
#vaccineswork1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
The guy who, today, linked to ~30 in vitro/rodent studies on green tea/weightloss to prove that it really DOES work despite there being a number of systematic reviews of RCTs on the subject
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
The endless array of people who throw rodent studies on brown fat or kidney function at me when I question whether intermittent fasting is more effective than other dieting interventions
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
The point is not that in vitro or in vivo studies are useless. The point is that they aren't useful as evidence ONCE WE'VE ACTUALLY TESTED THE THEORY IN PEOPLE
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
If there's been a systematic review that found 10 high-quality RCTs which included 10,000 participants that found no benefit from your intervention, to me that is MUCH stronger evidence than a study in 40 rats
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
If @cochranecollab has reviewed the question and found that there is likely no benefit, that's a whole lot better than a study in MCF-7 cancer cells
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.