6 ms·

Heh...this is a shady study if I ever saw one. -- Exactly 400 study participants recruited. -- Exactly 193 of 200 participants completing the study in each gr

by gwerbret 11mo ago

Heh...this is a shady study if I ever saw one. -- Exactly 400 study participants recruited. -- Exactly 193 of 200 participants completing the study in each group (which, for a study administered in a community setting, is an essentially impossibly-high completion rate). -- No author disclosures -- in fact, no information about the authors whatsoever, other than their names. -- No information on exposures, lifestyles, or other factors which invariably influence infection rates. -- Inappropriate statistical methods, which focus very heavily on p values. -- Only 3 authors, which for a randomized controlled trial involving hundreds of people in different settings with regular follow-up, seems rather unlikely.

roflmaostc 11mo ago
In the PDF they are all titled as "Assistant Professor, Department of General Medicine, Arundathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Dundigal, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana, India" The 2nd author is listed here: https://aims.ac.in/general-medicine/ https://aims.ac.in/general-medicine/ I did not find any trace for the other two authors (do they exist?). Also, look at the timings: Received: 16-09-2025 Accepted: 29-09-2025 Available online: 14-10-2025 That's relatively fast but also the paper is not super in-depth. And in general it seems like that the "International Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Research" is not quite well known. See the Editors, not even pictures there: https://ijmpr.in/editorial-board/ https://ijmpr.in/editorial-board/
- roflmaostc 11mo ago
  The first author is probably him: Dr. G Naresh (Asst. Prof.) https://aims.ac.in/general-medicine/ https://aims.ac.in/general-medicine/
roncesvalles 11mo ago
My bullshit meter redlined as well. > Incidence of ARIs was documented through monthly follow-up visits and self-reported symptom diaries validated by physician assessment. This is basically impossible to accomplish for 386 participants who aren't in some form of captivity (e.g. incarcerated, institutionalized, in the military, or a boarding school). Nobody cares enough to maintain a "self-reported symptoms diary" and make monthly visits for some study. If they actually ran the study as designed, they would've have zero usable participants even starting from 400. Saying nothing of the ethics of giving half the Vitamin D deficient patients presenting at your clinic with a placebo.
- givemeethekeys 11mo ago
  > (e.g. incarcerated, institutionalized, in the military, or a boarding school). That's a pretty big list. Add Retirement communities and your pool increases even more. Add to that the fact that this is India where the population is at least 5x bigger and much more concentrated..
  - bluGill 11mo ago
    Most retirement communities don't have that much supervision. Regardless, you can get a lot of data, but of it is from people who have other significant differences in lifestyle from the average person and so it is questionable how it applies. Military gets more physical fitness (we already know most of us need more). Boarding school implies young - children or just older, and so while not useful there are differences related to that to control for (military as well, unless you can get officers who are older thus allowing controlling for age).
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > Most retirement communities don't have that much supervision Retirement communities in India are relatively new. Most older folks get taken care of at home by domestic staff, which, given India's demographics, are incredibly cheap and thus plentiful.
      - bluGill 11mo ago
        I forgot this was India, my mistake. Though that means there are essentially no retirement communities to work with there.
        givemeethekeys 11mo ago
        There are retirement communities in India and end-of-life care centers as well. Societies change, and thanks to the internet, societies change faster than ever.
trilogic 11mo ago
[flagged]
- markhahn 11mo ago
  I think the strongest criticism is just that being short of just about anything would cause significant effects. being short of water, calories, any vitamin, protein, etc.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- kingkawn 11mo ago
  Wanting to agree with a study’s conclusions and so ignoring its weaknesses and red flags is bad scientific practice, further reinforcing the comment questioning the value of this publication
  - trilogic 11mo ago
    Maybe you are right, on ignoring a study weaknesses and red flags is bad scientific practice. Is that I have been involved personally so long in this topic, that I know for a fact that the results are Good. As I also know many good studies being ridiculed and buried on purpose. No one in the scientific community would dare to criticize a paper in that way. Constructive criticism is connected to intellectual, educated minds, all the rest deserves the same coin or being ignored. I still don´t understand why that comment on top, (I have seen this to many times).
- zahlman 11mo ago
  > It is: Negative, Unproductive, Antagonist, non Factual and frankly futile (unless provocative). The comment gives clear reasoning and makes claims about the contents of the paper that are supported by reading the paper. To call it "non-factual" is simply incorrect. The word "futile" is nonsensical in this context. You used three different words to complain that the comment critiques the study. There is nothing wrong with such critique in comments here, and indeed a healthy community requires that critique can rise to the top where it's warranted. > Have you done an experiment lately to show counter proof? Beside claims what else do you have! This is completely logically irrelevant, and suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of logic. Pointing out that a study is flawed does not require providing evidence for the opposite of the study's conclusion. > This paper is very positive A paper being "positive" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its finding is correct, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its methodology is valid, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it accurately reports what was actually observed (i.e. whether any kind of fraud was involved). > It is in fact (by personal experience)... It is fundamentally impossible to know those things "by personal experience". That's why studies exist.
NedF 11mo ago
[dead]

roflmaostc 11mo ago

In the PDF they are all titled as "Assistant Professor, Department of General Medicine, Arundathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Dundigal, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana, India" The 2nd author is listed here: https://aims.ac.in/general-medicine/ https://aims.ac.in/general-medicine/ I did not find any trace for the other two authors (do they exist?). Also, look at the timings: Received: 16-09-2025 Accepted: 29-09-2025 Available online: 14-10-2025 That's relatively fast but also the paper is not super in-depth. And in general it seems like that the "International Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Research" is not quite well known. See the Editors, not even pictures there: https://ijmpr.in/editorial-board/ https://ijmpr.in/editorial-board/

roflmaostc 11mo ago
The first author is probably him: Dr. G Naresh (Asst. Prof.) https://aims.ac.in/general-medicine/ https://aims.ac.in/general-medicine/

roncesvalles 11mo ago

My bullshit meter redlined as well. > Incidence of ARIs was documented through monthly follow-up visits and self-reported symptom diaries validated by physician assessment. This is basically impossible to accomplish for 386 participants who aren't in some form of captivity (e.g. incarcerated, institutionalized, in the military, or a boarding school). Nobody cares enough to maintain a "self-reported symptoms diary" and make monthly visits for some study. If they actually ran the study as designed, they would've have zero usable participants even starting from 400. Saying nothing of the ethics of giving half the Vitamin D deficient patients presenting at your clinic with a placebo.

givemeethekeys 11mo ago
> (e.g. incarcerated, institutionalized, in the military, or a boarding school). That's a pretty big list. Add Retirement communities and your pool increases even more. Add to that the fact that this is India where the population is at least 5x bigger and much more concentrated..
- bluGill 11mo ago
  Most retirement communities don't have that much supervision. Regardless, you can get a lot of data, but of it is from people who have other significant differences in lifestyle from the average person and so it is questionable how it applies. Military gets more physical fitness (we already know most of us need more). Boarding school implies young - children or just older, and so while not useful there are differences related to that to control for (military as well, unless you can get officers who are older thus allowing controlling for age).
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > Most retirement communities don't have that much supervision Retirement communities in India are relatively new. Most older folks get taken care of at home by domestic staff, which, given India's demographics, are incredibly cheap and thus plentiful.
    - bluGill 11mo ago
      I forgot this was India, my mistake. Though that means there are essentially no retirement communities to work with there.
      - givemeethekeys 11mo ago
        There are retirement communities in India and end-of-life care centers as well. Societies change, and thanks to the internet, societies change faster than ever.

trilogic 11mo ago

[flagged]

markhahn 11mo ago
I think the strongest criticism is just that being short of just about anything would cause significant effects. being short of water, calories, any vitamin, protein, etc.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
kingkawn 11mo ago
Wanting to agree with a study’s conclusions and so ignoring its weaknesses and red flags is bad scientific practice, further reinforcing the comment questioning the value of this publication
- trilogic 11mo ago
  Maybe you are right, on ignoring a study weaknesses and red flags is bad scientific practice. Is that I have been involved personally so long in this topic, that I know for a fact that the results are Good. As I also know many good studies being ridiculed and buried on purpose. No one in the scientific community would dare to criticize a paper in that way. Constructive criticism is connected to intellectual, educated minds, all the rest deserves the same coin or being ignored. I still don´t understand why that comment on top, (I have seen this to many times).
zahlman 11mo ago
> It is: Negative, Unproductive, Antagonist, non Factual and frankly futile (unless provocative). The comment gives clear reasoning and makes claims about the contents of the paper that are supported by reading the paper. To call it "non-factual" is simply incorrect. The word "futile" is nonsensical in this context. You used three different words to complain that the comment critiques the study. There is nothing wrong with such critique in comments here, and indeed a healthy community requires that critique can rise to the top where it's warranted. > Have you done an experiment lately to show counter proof? Beside claims what else do you have! This is completely logically irrelevant, and suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of logic. Pointing out that a study is flawed does not require providing evidence for the opposite of the study's conclusion. > This paper is very positive A paper being "positive" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its finding is correct, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its methodology is valid, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it accurately reports what was actually observed (i.e. whether any kind of fraud was involved). > It is in fact (by personal experience)... It is fundamentally impossible to know those things "by personal experience". That's why studies exist.

NedF 11mo ago

[dead]