More content is better than nothing, no matter where it comes from

I’m optimistic about Slate. Perhaps naively so.

I wrote the snippet. I mentioned why I phrased it as such elsewhere in thread:

I’ve found that people misinterpret percentage decreases as odds ratios unless I include the negative sign. The negative sign following decrease language is at best redundant and at worst actually means what is technically opposite to what I want to convey, but including it appears to make things clearer for folks for whatever reason.

Lemmy seems to be better than Reddit in this regard, given that I’ve now twice commented the explanation. Perhaps I’ll try without the negative sign in the future.

I’ve found that people misinterpret percentage decreases as odds ratios unless I include the negative sign. The negative sign following decrease language is at best redundant and at worst actually means what is technically opposite to what I want to convey, but including it appears to make things clearer for folks for whatever reason.

There are some university presses that have started their own journals in response to these issues. It’s a broken system, but no one is stopping anyone from creating new journals. All it takes is to eat away at the margins of for-profit journals by publishing fewer papers in them for them to eventually lose interest in the sector.

Mendelian randomization does not a causal claim justify. It’s almost certainly the case that poverty causes mental illness, but this study’s design does not permit causal inference.

The data are promising:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/lithium-and-risk-for-alzheimers-disease-in-elderly-patients-with-bipolar-disorder/2F966D8BD1FF7E946C95949950AA61C1

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.01.12.26343472.abstract

Try eating the same number of calories on a vegan diet. It’s hard. More fiber fills you quicker. The diets can’t equate both satiety and calories. Lower calories on a vegan diet is a feature, not a bug.

Yes, it plays a role. What exactly it’s doing is unclear, and it’s probably more that it’s setting up tau to do the real nasty stuff, but it contributes. We know that from experimental work in nonhuman animal models and converging longitudinal work in humans. See, for example: https://www.cell.com/neuron/pdfExtended/S0896-6273(22)00305-1

That’s just *56. Amyloid has been known for decades to play some role, even though *56’s data was fraudulent (for a lay-friendly discussion, see https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/what-we-do/researchers/news/explaining-amyloid-research-study-controversy). Amyloid is certainly not the only thing at play, but it does play some role.

What if we 👉@👈 …? 🤭