Health Nerd
@gidmk.bsky.social
30K followers 400 following 2.3K posts
Epidemiologist. Research Fellow. Doctor of Spreadsheets. Writer (Slate, TIME, Guardian, etc). PhD, MPH. Host of senscipod Email [email protected] he/him. Find my writing on Substack and Medium.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
gidmk.bsky.social
Yep. Structural barriers>individual motivation every time
gidmk.bsky.social
Realistically though the most likely outcome is that people will not change their diets anyway because that's generally how dietary recommendations fail.
gidmk.bsky.social
We don't know whether this is caused by COVID-19. All of the participants in the study had almost certainly had COVID-19, so it's incredibly uncertain. It's a very specific population, so not really generalizable. Etc, etc, etc.
gidmk.bsky.social
I'm not trying to attack the researchers or research. This is interesting, and with enough of these studies you might get to the point where you could make some real comments on how Long COVID may impact the brain.

But the press release and media buzz about it are absurd.
gidmk.bsky.social
Pretty much what I expected. In this very small group of patients, there was a modest increase in AMPA receptor density in Japanese Long COVID patients who had persistent cognitive impairment.
gidmk.bsky.social
Haven't read the study or press release yet.

My guess is that this is going to be a tiny, arbitrary sample of people where there is a very modest but statistically significant increase in some random biomarker in the Long COVID group that may or may not be replicated in larger trials.
gidmk.bsky.social
Of the many, many silly things in nutrition research, the fact that the Korean government regularly funds research that shows kimchi in a positive light is one of my favourites.

Hilarious stuff.
gidmk.bsky.social
Unlikely. I'll take a look.
gidmk.bsky.social
Astonishingly, since posting this comment I've already identified more errors in the paper. This statement does not match the very first row of the table directly underneath it, for example:
gidmk.bsky.social
9/n We may not be able to say for certain what happened here, but we can be quite sure that the study reported by the authors in 2024 definitely did not happen as it was described.

It's plausible that it never happened at all.
gidmk.bsky.social
8/n I have not seen the dataset myself, but having read this report I would be surprised if these are the only issues. Indeed, that's what the conclusion says.
gidmk.bsky.social
7/n

7. There are signs in the dataset that the main outcome measure of BMI may have been intentionally manipulated to find a significant result. Specifically, BMI was incorrectly calculated for the high-dose and placebo groups in a way that made the effect appear larger.
gidmk.bsky.social
6/n

4. The outcomes of the study had the same issue except worse.

5. The baseline data of the groups was highly unbalanced, meaning this dataset could not have been randomized.

6. The study drastically UNDERestimated the treatment effect(!).
gidmk.bsky.social
5/n

3. The baseline values of the study - i.e. Table 1 - could not be replicated. In 42/84 of cases, the mean and SD of the dataset sent through by the authors was more than 10% out from what they stated in their manuscript.
gidmk.bsky.social
4/n Some wonderful highlights of the statistical report:

1. The study didn't adhere to CONSORT guidelines.
2. The statistics section of the methodology was wrong.
gidmk.bsky.social
3/n The really interesting thing here is that the BMJ commissioned a full statistical report into the data that the authors sent through for their study.

It is DAMNING and a great read. Sadly, it's just the supplementary to the retraction and not the main body: nutrition.bmj.com/content/earl...
Retraction: Apple cider vinegar for weight management in lebanese adolescents and young adults with overweight and obesity: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study
This paper1 is retracted by the journal, with the agreement of the authors.
nutrition.bmj.com
gidmk.bsky.social
This is a fascinating story.

A Lebanese team published a study showing massive benefits for apple cider vinegar in 2024. People immediately noticed it was problematic, and complained.

BMJ asked the authors for the data, and they sent it through. The study has just been retracted and WOW 1/n
gidmk.bsky.social
If you're in Sydney and know people/have patients with metabolic disease (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, etc) - let them know about the PANDA trial! Being run by my former PhD supervisor:

www.powerlab.site/research/pan...
PowerLab - Phase 1 & 2 PANDA Trial
PANDA Trial Physical Activity in Nature for Cardiometabolic Diseases in People Aged 45y+
www.powerlab.site
gidmk.bsky.social
Hahahaha yes. My daughter is 2, this tracks.
gidmk.bsky.social
All of the studies have inadequate measures of exposure. In many ways, the Swedish one is the most robust (clinician report+prescribing vs mostly self-report) but regardless there's no scientific reason to believe that such biases flow in the direction the authors want them to.
gidmk.bsky.social
Yes it's bizarre and arbitrary. There's no clear reason given for any of their decisions, which makes it feel like it's basically their opinions masquerading as science.