There's some truth to this comment! So many substances are "virucidal" in vitro, but that doesn't translate to in vivo safety or clinical efficacy. Bleach?
It's interesting to me that we have a range of people who will try anything and everything regarding Covid treatment to people who deny it exists at all and don't get vaccines, treatment or use masks, even when they are sick. I know people who say their primary care doctor told them it doesn't exist. Are there any reputable journals that cast doubt on it or that say the vaccine is dangerous for the average person? It seems ludicrous (and possibly dangerous) to me that their doctor would give them this advice.
It really is a sign of the times, when and where we live in unique reality bubbles. As much of the world rejects the old guard, the elites, the experts... disruptors and opportunists fill a thirst for righteous indignation and easy fixes for all the things that are genuinely wrong with our world. Amazing to me that many Trump voters were Bernie voters... simply craving change and sensing the game stacked against them, which it is! It won't be unstacked this way. I don't know of any reputable journals that give life to Covid revisionism through the articles they peer-review and publish. May it stay that way under tremendous pressure coming.
Thank you for the thorough analysis. The details matter. Appreciate that you actively practice as a primary physician AND dedicate time to digest and disseminate valuable information. It matters!
Thank you Lisa! I was going to write about another topic but this real life question took up my free time, and it seemed germane to what I write about anyway... so glad it was of value to you! 100% clinicians like me don't have much time to write, but there is much to be shared from clinical experience and academic evidence, so I try!
This is helpful not only for the specific content, but also in demonstrating how to get below the top line to assess the legitimacy and veracity of the study. Well done!
It was a good exercise for me, thanks for seeing that Susan and validating it for you, too. I forced myself to keep this "quick-ish", but the side dive into the world of predatory journals and how to distinguish quality from junk could be a separate Substack. If only we had more time ;)
Thank you, Ryan, for showing us the basic questions to ask about any research - Where is it published? Who funded the research? How many participants in the study? Who and how many people reviewed it? And for science-related research, knowing about those predatory journals and how they operate is crucial. I’m going to read Paul Sax’s article next to learn more.
Thanks Liz! Your questions are bedrock ones for quality assessment, and I should really find and share a primer for people wanting to sort through this stuff on their own, too. Dr. Google and all the rest can really lead us into some dark corners of questionable science, and "publication" lends instant credibility to a lot of junk. I'll try to get on that soon!
So, we have N=259, funded by this guy, https://www.drferrerbiopharma.com/ and self reporting questionnaire plus what you already mentioned....I call BS. The AI is quite hilarious, look at the fingers too... PS, like the quick boost series.
Yes, it would be an interesting side project to follow the money that funded this study. I know money has to come from somewhere, and big Pharma pays for their own trials by necessity, too. Would be nice to increase public funding for science, but in a way that doesn't get hijacked. Will rekindle the quick boost series this year, thanks! And keeping them quicker is the challenge...
I've never published (I'm 100% clinical work) so I don't know this from experience, but upon searching quickly it seems that most of the top-tier journals accept submissions for free, but upon acceptance charge a few thousand dollars, including extra for graphics, open access, etc! Doesn't seem right if they are also accepting Pharma and other advertising dollars, though I know the lights need to stay on. The lesser quality journals seem to base their business models on up front thousands of dollars paid, but once again not my wheelhouse.
Re "pay to publish" - I am married to an economist who has published a fair number of research papers over his career (books, too). I have never heard of "paying to publish" any reputable research. He also has done peer reviews which is considered what a responsible academic does periodically when asked by a publisher. These reviews are anonymous to the author and take a significant amount of time to do properly.
Thank you so much for spending your valuable time doing a deep dive into this "research" and for spreading the word about the importance of evaluating sources of the "science".
Thanks for this Adair, refreshing to hear! I thought that was how it worked but in the medical journals it seems like maybe there is a pay to play, I think I’ll ask some of my friends/contacts who have done a lot of publishing and see what the actual deal is with medical journals. (I’m sure different answers for different publications). Thanks for reading and stopping by!
Thank you, Dr. Ryan, for being so scrupulous in evaluating studies.
And thanks for the AI image, which made me chuckle.
I'm finding that AI generated images are good for a chuckle, unless you have some upgraded generation capabilities. Thanks for reading :)
I'd just as soon spray Icy/Hot up my nose! Surely the nasty little viruses would dislike that!
There's some truth to this comment! So many substances are "virucidal" in vitro, but that doesn't translate to in vivo safety or clinical efficacy. Bleach?
Oh why not? Perfectly reasonable. I've been thinking about Tinactin, Lemon Pledge, or that lock de-icer spray I got for the car doors!
It's interesting to me that we have a range of people who will try anything and everything regarding Covid treatment to people who deny it exists at all and don't get vaccines, treatment or use masks, even when they are sick. I know people who say their primary care doctor told them it doesn't exist. Are there any reputable journals that cast doubt on it or that say the vaccine is dangerous for the average person? It seems ludicrous (and possibly dangerous) to me that their doctor would give them this advice.
It really is a sign of the times, when and where we live in unique reality bubbles. As much of the world rejects the old guard, the elites, the experts... disruptors and opportunists fill a thirst for righteous indignation and easy fixes for all the things that are genuinely wrong with our world. Amazing to me that many Trump voters were Bernie voters... simply craving change and sensing the game stacked against them, which it is! It won't be unstacked this way. I don't know of any reputable journals that give life to Covid revisionism through the articles they peer-review and publish. May it stay that way under tremendous pressure coming.
Thank you for the thorough analysis. The details matter. Appreciate that you actively practice as a primary physician AND dedicate time to digest and disseminate valuable information. It matters!
Thank you Lisa! I was going to write about another topic but this real life question took up my free time, and it seemed germane to what I write about anyway... so glad it was of value to you! 100% clinicians like me don't have much time to write, but there is much to be shared from clinical experience and academic evidence, so I try!
This is helpful not only for the specific content, but also in demonstrating how to get below the top line to assess the legitimacy and veracity of the study. Well done!
It was a good exercise for me, thanks for seeing that Susan and validating it for you, too. I forced myself to keep this "quick-ish", but the side dive into the world of predatory journals and how to distinguish quality from junk could be a separate Substack. If only we had more time ;)
Always appreciate the *reality*.
Thank you, Ryan, for showing us the basic questions to ask about any research - Where is it published? Who funded the research? How many participants in the study? Who and how many people reviewed it? And for science-related research, knowing about those predatory journals and how they operate is crucial. I’m going to read Paul Sax’s article next to learn more.
Just read the Sax article. Ohmygod.
Thanks Liz! Your questions are bedrock ones for quality assessment, and I should really find and share a primer for people wanting to sort through this stuff on their own, too. Dr. Google and all the rest can really lead us into some dark corners of questionable science, and "publication" lends instant credibility to a lot of junk. I'll try to get on that soon!
So, we have N=259, funded by this guy, https://www.drferrerbiopharma.com/ and self reporting questionnaire plus what you already mentioned....I call BS. The AI is quite hilarious, look at the fingers too... PS, like the quick boost series.
Yes, it would be an interesting side project to follow the money that funded this study. I know money has to come from somewhere, and big Pharma pays for their own trials by necessity, too. Would be nice to increase public funding for science, but in a way that doesn't get hijacked. Will rekindle the quick boost series this year, thanks! And keeping them quicker is the challenge...
A really nice analysis!
Great analysis as usual, doc. Is it typical for researchers looking to publish to have to pay thousands for peer review? I never knew that.
That AI pic was deliciously ridic 🤣
I've never published (I'm 100% clinical work) so I don't know this from experience, but upon searching quickly it seems that most of the top-tier journals accept submissions for free, but upon acceptance charge a few thousand dollars, including extra for graphics, open access, etc! Doesn't seem right if they are also accepting Pharma and other advertising dollars, though I know the lights need to stay on. The lesser quality journals seem to base their business models on up front thousands of dollars paid, but once again not my wheelhouse.
I was wondering if you had seen this study and what you thought of it. Thanks for being so timely!
Re "pay to publish" - I am married to an economist who has published a fair number of research papers over his career (books, too). I have never heard of "paying to publish" any reputable research. He also has done peer reviews which is considered what a responsible academic does periodically when asked by a publisher. These reviews are anonymous to the author and take a significant amount of time to do properly.
Thank you so much for spending your valuable time doing a deep dive into this "research" and for spreading the word about the importance of evaluating sources of the "science".
Thanks for this Adair, refreshing to hear! I thought that was how it worked but in the medical journals it seems like maybe there is a pay to play, I think I’ll ask some of my friends/contacts who have done a lot of publishing and see what the actual deal is with medical journals. (I’m sure different answers for different publications). Thanks for reading and stopping by!