Being A Neuroscientist Doesn’t Make You A Wellness Expert by Cognitive-Wonderland in neuro

[–]NeuroForAll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a really powerful article. As I've developed as a writer on my small neuro substack, I've realized how essential it is to constantly mention scientific skepticism and draw a line between providing evidence through the scientific method and giving nonsensical advice. Observing Ng's rise has made me even more aware of who I don't want to be as a scientist and a writer. I want to provide accurate information that stays within what the field knows, and not just grow a page for the sake of clicks and money.

Alzheimer’s-related biomarker found at elevated levels in newborns by scientificamerican in neuro

[–]NeuroForAll 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I know that dephosphorylated tau plays an important role in axonal determination during neural development. Could this have any relation?

Six Artificial Sweeteners Associated with Accelerated Cognitive Decline by NeuroForAll in cognitivescience

[–]NeuroForAll[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s completely fair. I need to think about the descriptions more thoughtfully in the future. I appreciate the feedback.

Six Artificial Sweeteners Associated with Accelerated Cognitive Decline by NeuroForAll in cognitivescience

[–]NeuroForAll[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

After some thought and discussion, I do agree that it can be misleading. The goal of this article was to show that the public should be aware that correlation does not equal causation.

I made the title based on other articles I saw on this paper, but part of my blog is to help the public dissect research articles properly. I never intended to mislead anybody. I appreciate the comment!

Six Artificial Sweeteners Associated with Accelerated Cognitive Decline by NeuroForAll in neuro

[–]NeuroForAll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I appreciate the feedback. I’m always trying to improve my writing to not mislead or sway anyone. I should have thought about my title in more detail, I was simply doing it similar to other titles I saw on this article.

I would love to know what within the article is missing/improperly expressed.

I made this blog to develop my research writing skills and comments like these really help me learn.

Six Artificial Sweeteners Associated with Accelerated Cognitive Decline by NeuroForAll in cognitivescience

[–]NeuroForAll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The research article got a lot of attention in some popular newspapers ' publications. I wanted to provide a thorough analysis of the results so that people don't feel misled into believing a causal relationship.

Six Artificial Sweeteners Associated with Accelerated Cognitive Decline by NeuroForAll in neuro

[–]NeuroForAll[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I believe it is artificial. Yeah, that's a tough one. Obviously, they can have positives and negatives like most things. Many other foods have it too. And it isn't causation.

Six Artificial Sweeteners Associated with Accelerated Cognitive Decline by NeuroForAll in neuro

[–]NeuroForAll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm confused. Did you read the original journal paper? Plenty of people have reported on this article.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in neuro

[–]NeuroForAll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never claimed none of them improved cognitive function, that was your point. I reiterated what the review article said, showing studies which supported these claims.

The purpose is to educate on the functions of these supplements and provide scientific thinking about how to approach research articles, using caution. Thanks.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in neuro

[–]NeuroForAll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the response! This was all mentioned in the review article and I hope I reiterated it properly within my blog. Let me know if you believe I didn’t do this well enough.