A cluster of Neandarthal genes is correlated to more severe CoViD-19 symptoms and death

[BacktoCricaddict]

6 hours ago, mishra said:

Exactly, Both below statement are true and can be scientifically  prooven. You just need to know what you want to proove.

 

1: Scientist believe that doing running/cardi makes you healthy.

 

2: Scientists believe that running/cardio has huge helth risk.

 

Bhai, context of each research study is important.  Humans are not all the same.  One study may be reporting on people with other underlying conditions or a case study of someone who pushed themselves beyond their heart's limit, in which case they had a heart attack.  But another study may have done research on moderate running / cardio for overweight people and conclude that this made them healthy.  So, both conclusions are correct, but within the population being studied.  Anecdotally, my friend, an athletic tennis player, had a heart attack on the court because he pushed himself too hard, and had to have emergency heart surgery .  On the other hand, I am just a normal guy who started jogging/running 20-25 miles a week, and am much healthier now than I was last year.  So, both can be true!  

 

Problem is, media picks on a single research study and gives sensational headlines like "Cardio can be a huge health risk."  Public sees headlines, does not bother to read the details and misunderstands the context of the research.  Is there bad science out there?  Of course there is.  Which is why one must not jump to conclusions based on a single paper but wait to see if the results are repeatable and statistically valid.  But, media and public don't have the patience for that.  

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

Genetic science is a developing one since as late as 80s about a 50 years. While it has made vast improvements in sequencing, human nature, medicine, etc population genetics is more of a mathematical analysis of data, fitting into a model that can then be imposed on pre-existing theory or create a new hypothesis and claim many things. Remember, the population genetic study published by a famous geneticist David Reich? He published various such hypothesis and went around claiming a lot about AIT, etc based one set of sample data (specimen of people). Journalist Tony Joesph based one that one theory writes a book about who we are, when the caste system was introduced by Aryans etc., for posters like Alam Dar write false platitudes about Hinduism etc. 

 

Basically, more research is needed to support or reject such hypothesis. It means more funding, currently such funding is there only for reputed western scientists and they can push their biased studies.  Meanwhile, we should wary of sentences like “studies have shown that “ while those studies would be funded by same big Pharma that gets benefitted by those studies. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

28 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Genetic science is a developing one since as late as 80s about a 50 years. While it has made vast improvements in sequencing, human nature, medicine, etc population genetics is more of a mathematical analysis of data, fitting into a model that can then be imposed on pre-existing theory or create a new hypothesis and claim many things. Remember, the population genetic study published by a famous geneticist David Reich? He published various such hypothesis and went around claiming a lot about AIT, etc based one set of sample data (specimen of people). Journalist Tony Joesph based one that one theory writes a book about who we are, when the caste system was introduced by Aryans etc., for posters like Alam Dar write false platitudes about Hinduism etc. 

 

Basically, more research is needed to support or reject such hypothesis. It means more funding, currently such funding is there only for reputed western scientists and they can push their biased studies.  Meanwhile, we should wary of sentences like “studies have shown that “ while those studies would be funded by same big Pharma that gets benefitted by those studies. 

Very true.  Although I would also contend that "human nature" study (psychology) has not risen to the highest standards of scientific rigor (recently there was an article that showed that more than half of psychology studies were not reproducible).  One of the reasons is that it depends a great deal on people filling surveys, and people lie.

 

One of the most frustrating things about being a scientist is to see hypotheses turned by the media and others into conclusions.  I don't keep up much with anthropological genetics, but from what I understand, Reich did not make it clear that his ideas were just hypotheses.  This led other people to extrapolate his ideas to fit their own flawed thinking.  The same type of thing happened with the eugenics movement in the 1900s.  It will self-correct, but we must be patient.  

 

Finally, it's not just big pharma that funds research.  It is also big supplement.  Big natural.  Big organic.  NGOs.  That is why a single study should never be taken at face value.  On the other hand, we must also not summarily reject any particular study based on our preconceived notions of its origins or funding source.    

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

22 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Very true.  Although I would also contend that "human nature" study (psychology) has not risen to the highest standards of scientific rigor (recently there was an article that showed that more than half of psychology studies were not reproducible).  One of the reasons is that it depends a great deal on people filling surveys, and people lie.

 

One of the most frustrating things about being a scientist is to see hypotheses turned by the media and others into conclusions.  I don't keep up much with anthropological genetics, but from what I understand, Reich did not make it clear that his ideas were just hypotheses.  This led other people to extrapolate his ideas to fit their own flawed thinking.  The same type of thing happened with the eugenics movement in the 1900s.  It will self-correct, but we must be patient.  

 

Finally, it's not just big pharma that funds research.  It is also big supplement.  Big natural.  Big organic.  NGOs.  That is why a single study should never be taken at face value.  On the other hand, we must also not summarily reject any particular study based on our preconceived notions of its origins or funding source.    

 

 

I have seen some outrageous claims in Gene Altering/Gene Modification technology to cure rare diseases or even act like vaccination to avoid diseases like diabetes, cancer etc. There are ads from NY clinics who claim to alter your genes for better physical health, immunity and metabolism. Are they not regulated ? It is scary what they can do, designer babies, sex selection (already done now), and longevity of life (Holy Grail/Immortality!). 

[The Dark Horse]

After this pandemic no report/study will be believed..