Monday, December 18, 2017

"Expert" Commentary on a Paper They Didn't Read

The story of canola oil causing dementia and memory issues seems like old news.  But I received an email that it has popped up again in the wacky press, another alleged expert weighing in on this obvious relationship that actually is not even remotely supported by the data in the paper.  These cases are especially egregious because these health-oriented websites get huge traffic, and lousy information is consumed rapidly and shared widely. 



The claim emerges again, but this time with a new twist! 


The author, Michelle Schoffro Cook didn't even read the paper, but is happy to lend her opinions that further advance this misinformation, along with a dandy of a tangential spin.  How do I know she didn't read it?  She notes in her analysis that it was published in the journal Nature.  It was not.  Nature wouldn't touch this paper with a 10 impact factor pole. 

It is not a bad paper.  It is not a good paper.   I would not have done the experiments that way, but the authors reported how they did it and only slightly overstepped the data in their Discussion.  

The problem is the university communications office that turned a few data points into a national culinary catastrophe. 

1 comment:

Wzrd1 said...

Interesting, as I ignore that equation, self-motivation is BS, as there are a number of reasons to motivate someone, ranging from being paid through trying to educate.
Intimacy, that goes into the wastebasket always.
Detailed Q&A answers isn't intimacy at all, it's revealing evidence.

I want facts, I want figures, I want data sets, I want replication.
Being the guy or gal with cute hair won't cut it, being tough with the data counts.
Play the rest of RED for the humor, I'm REF.
Retired, Extremely Flatulent.