PubMed

(Consensus is Politics) #1

So, credit where credit is due. I haven’t heard of this until this morning. While listing to the No Agenda podcast #1097 at about the 1:25:00 mark, they play a clip from Dr Sharon Goldberg, internal medicine, who goes on to say that “wireless radiation causes high bloood glucose.”

Wtf? She cites PubMed. Ok, so I decide to check this out.

First off, I have heard of PubMed, but have never used it myself. Never been to the site before as far as I can remember. So it’s entirely possible I’m not using the site correctly for this. I searched for the site for wireless radiation and diabetes. I found one entry.

To be honest, the is equal to supermarket tabloids. You know, the ones with the pictures of half/bat half human babies, Elvis sightings, planet Niburu pictures taking up half the sky, but only if you were in a certain city.

Seriously, this makes me doubt EVERYTHING they post. You can’t trust it if they post someone’s opinion as fact. Where the F@&K is the science?

Well, if it meets a political agenda, it doesn’t require science, just a consensus. And plenty of people seem to agree with consensus on RF radiation causing cancer with no studies showing it as a cause, other that what nearly amounts to testing rats to 100x the exposed per hour as you would get in a year.

/rant -off

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” - Dr Michael Crichton

(Karen) #2

Hahahaha great rant. Silliness abounds.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #3

Since PubMed is supposed to list all published studies, I am not surprised it shows up there. What does surprise me, however, is how such an article could survive the peer-review process.

(Brennan) #4

absurd lol

(Consensus is Politics) #5

Political agenda

(KCKO, KCFO 🥥) #6

PaulL, more and more journals are moving to pay for publishing. Maybe it ended up in one of those journals. This kind of dribble is usually about the money anyone, even more than political agendas, of which there are plenty.

(Doug) #7

Man Enters Giant Microwave

(less is more, more or less) #8

That article is a hoot! I almost thought it was an Onion “news story”

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #9

Um, political agenda? The only possible industry agenda is not anti-RF, it’s PRO-RF. There’s many many hundreds of billions of dollars in sunk infrastructure costs, whereas there’s literally no commercial incentive on the other side. There’s no anti-RF lobby, no anti-RF industry.

I’m not surprised to see a post like this here, and it most certainly is a rant. Keto often attracts conspiracy theorists and anti-science types. That’s only because medicine and nutrition haven’t been science-based (in terms of diet) for so many decades, which makes some people suspicious of everything.

Sure, you should be somewhat skeptical about everything, but on RF the precautionary principle should prevail. Your own cellphone manual says that the device should never be within an inch of the body; there is absolutely no scientific consensus on the long-term health effects of cellphones or the telecoms infrastructure that is bathing us in EMF all the time. So it pains me to see someone ridiculing a journal article merely because it talks about the effects of EMF on glucose. I can only presume the motivation for this is some sort of narrow view that assumes that any other possible environmental factor that could change glucose levels somehow threatens the science of low carb. It doesn’t.

I’ve clicked through to the journal article. It’s a perfectly legitimate bit of science, it seems to come from a legitimate academic journal, the concerns it raises aren’t crazy, and it’s ridiculous that you’re ridiculing it as “supermarket tabloid” stuff.

The OP is supermarket tabloid stuff. I don’t know why it annoys me so much; perhaps because other people here are posting and validating the position of someone who is ridiculing a journal article for no legitimate reason at all.

P.S. The article itself is fascinating. Did it occur to you that you may have stumbled upon a possible reason for some people’s stalls? Loads of people post here and complain that they’re keto but can’t drop the last 20 or 50 pounds. Maybe EMF has something to do with it? Maybe other environmental factors? It seems utterly narrow-minded to dismiss this, without any evidence, despite the fact that the journal article itself presents plenty of evidence for its claims!

P.P.S.

(Cindy) #10

I don’t have access to the full article, so I’m curious. What kind of controls did they set up? Did they expand the study to include anyone other than this single person?

(Jane) #11

Did you pay the $54 for the entire article, or are you really defending something you haven’t even read?

The abstract mentions one individual reporting the effect. Not a scientist observing it. Without the full article it is speculation.

(Todd Allen) #12

The full article is behind a paywall but pirates can access it here:
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/15368378.2017.1323762

My view is this article is anecdotal observations of an individual. I personally don’t see why it was considered publish worthy nor do I know anything of the reputation of the journal in which it was published. But it doesn’t bother me much that I can find can find nearly endless amounts of crap via pubmed or google scholar or any other search engine. Being able to cast a wide net has value.

(less is more, more or less) #13

So, if we can storm the ramparts with our personal n=1 anecdotes, the troll in me says; “go for it.” The 56 year old in me puts the computer away to play with the family.

(Cindy) #14

I don’t currently work in a science based field, but my higher education was in Biology, Chemistry, Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry. Unfortunately, many people do NOT understand that for something to be “scientific,” there needs to be strictly controlled variables, controls in place, it can be replicated, etc. Who’s to say that, for this person, using technology is a highly stressful event (maybe he’s a technophobe?) so that his temperature rises and blood sugar goes up? That’s just ONE way I can imagine his response potentially having nothing to do with the technology.

@gabe, you drive me a bit crazy because you’re so quick to say “it’s science!” or “it’s physics!” LOL But in any true scientific study, the goal is change only ONE variable. Keep everything else controlled, then study what happens with that ONE variable.

As soon as I read “A type 1 diabetic male reports multiple instances when his blood glucose was dramatically elevated by the presence of microwave radiation from wireless technology and plummeted when the radiation exposure ended.” I had multiple questions. Was this JUST an anecdotal report from the single person? In which case, it has NOTHING to do with science. What is mean by “dramatically?” Again, there’s no SCIENCE there. Science would report it as a numerical amount, because one person’s dramatic is not the same as another’s. He reported being in the “presence” of microwave radiation. What does that mean? Within a foot? 12 ft? 20 ft? Inches? And what wireless technology? Standing under a cell phone tower? A microwave relay station?

Of course, those questions might be answered within the full text, but just in the way the abstract was written makes me think of it as click bait, not a true scientific study of any sort.

(squirrel-kissing paper tamer) #15

Doctor: Bob, your blood glucose levels are up. Have you been following your diet?

Bob: It’s the microwave radiation from wireless technology, Doc, I swear!

(Consensus is Politics) #16

There is no science there at all. It’s one persons report. It isn’t science unless it’s repeatable. The article was simply quoting what one individual said, and presenting it as science.

And my ridiculing it as tabloid stuff stand up just as much as the one guy claiming it happened. Just as much science on either end of that. Have you ever heard of “pointing out the absurdity by being absurd?” The article is absurd. It shouldn’t be treated as fact.

All too often lately I hear conversation where one party points to a theory, and says “see, it’s true. You can’t argue with that”. I speak to him later and point out that theory isn’t fact. It’s actually just a best guess given the known variables. A theory could be wrong. But so many people are treating them as facts. Journals like this propagate the idiocy, nay, The ignorance of the dumb masses.

(KM) #17

PubMed is just an indexing and search tool to sift through the millions of articles. No academic or scientist takes an article as absolute fact just because it is on PubMed. Tons of high-quality scientific articles which have changed the world for the better are also available on PubMed.

(Jane) #18

No, just some posters here :wink:

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #19

Take a look at this one, which is accessible in full text, from 2009:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15368370802072075?src=recsys

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #20

I have access to the full article. https://whereisscihub.now.sh/