Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by xenonite | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

xenonite·

The link should be changed to the publisher‘s page where the pdf is linked.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25728

View on HN

It's important to see the NIH summary though. Gives the study credibility.

That is just the abstract as indexed by pubmed. NIH has no oversight on the content.

Which is actually a problem. Not uncommon to see obvious sham science propagated with an official-looking PubMed link at nih.gov.

"I'm allergic to WiFi."

"No, you're not. Nobody is allergic to WiFi."

"Yes, I am. Here's an official PubMed citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109 . Why do you hate science?"

>Provocation studies on EMF have yielded different results, ranging from where people with EHS cannot discriminate between an active RF signal and placebo, to objectively observed changes following exposure in reactions of the pupil, changes in heart rhythm, damage to erythrocytes, and disturbed glucose metabolism in the brain.

The paper you linked admits that there are studies that show it's the same as a placebo. Just because most people aren't qualified to realize that the studies in the first half of the sentence might be more reliable than the studies in the second half doesn't mean the paper shouldn't be published.

So? You can say exactly the same things about ESP or dowsing. Run enough studies, even properly-conducted ones, and some of them will yield the results you're hoping for. At that point, all you have to do is either ignore the others altogether, or leverage them to argue in favor of "teaching the controversy," as is done in this particular paper.

This strategy is meaningless in terms of scientific value, but it certainly sounds authentic enough to non-specialists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com