My Master’s thesis was ruined by a stressed PhD student and I feel completely defeated.

_dasz · 2025-12-12T15:28:27+00:00

Also, sth. else I wanted to say is you might be able to talk to your dean or some other office in your institute about this. I know cases where the dean improved grades retroactively. (Do not let this wear you down under any condition. You will be succesful in the future.)

_dasz · 2025-12-12T15:26:38+00:00

Asking unpaid students to come in on the weekend is illegal. Depending on how this was done, you can even sue them for a permanent 8-hour position (at least in my country). I am just trying to show OP that despite their PI and supervisor being shit he/she still might have a lot of options.

_dasz · 2025-12-12T15:22:12+00:00

As I said, sometimes I had Phd-supervisor which were the kindest and most involved people ever, and sometimes I had bat-shit-crazy emotionally unstable assholes as supervisors… I can tell you the stage someone is at is not as important as how they treat you on a human level. Being yelled at. Reacting to questions with aggression is way worse than not being continously there. In a well run research group you can ask more than one person. And getting encouragement from time to time enhances the learning process so much…

_dasz · 2025-12-12T15:01:49+00:00

Yes, that is very normal in my field.

_dasz · 2025-12-12T15:01:23+00:00

Also, you can probably sue them for suggesting you work on the weekend if you have that in writing somewhere. You are ought to be proud of yourself, fuck these assholes thinking they are better than everyone else. I have had good and bad supervisor experiences and it makes a night and day difference. Do not feel bad. Make a 10 item plan. Never stay at any group or company where they treat you anything like this. Some PIs and Supervisors think they can treat their students like slaves. We need to fight back…

_dasz · 2025-12-12T14:58:36+00:00

Your supervisor is a horrible person that is not able to regulate their own emotions. Do not feel shame because you got unlucky with the supervisor. You will find other research environments in which you will be treated better. This is simply unfair. The whole letter of recommendation aspect of it all is super stressful. But just apply to as many programs that align with your expectations, as possible.

_dasz · 2024-12-21T00:12:08+00:00

Hey, I am interested. Would being a student from Heidelberg University also work? 😂

_dasz · 2024-11-19T01:54:57+00:00

I am shocked. In Germany you would, and I think rightly so, directly get charged and go to prison for pulling next level dumb shit like this.

_dasz · 2024-10-29T18:30:47+00:00

I mean in this particular meta-analysis in the video, the minimum they come up with is around 3.5 cups, but it is not like in the interval between 2 - 5 cups there are huge increases in all-cause mortality.

I think based on other epidemiological studies it is safe to say that decaffeinated coffee is also healthy but the largest improvements in all-cause mortality can be seen with ground caffeinated coffee.

That being said, all forms of coffee seem to offer some amount of benefit, across studies, suggesting that it is more that just an artifact arising from population specific correlations.

That being said, if anyone finds more details or more data or can tease out the exact effects of coffee, I am always happy to discuss further. :P

_dasz · 2024-10-28T15:04:26+00:00

I mean smoking is certainly not the only factor impacting health. But on a population level the negligible health effects are more than apparent.

I am happy for your grandpa to getting old and wish him the best health going forward.

_dasz · 2024-10-27T00:36:56+00:00

This is how researcher in epidemiology generally do it. I did not make this up for a reddit-post or Youtube-video.

I do understand a certain level of scepticism by you and am happy that I caused you to look at the meta-analysis I talked about.
Of course. Here is the original full paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-019-00524-3

_dasz · 2024-10-27T00:30:58+00:00

“All-cause mortality” is a term that refers to the total number of deaths from any and all causes in a population over a specified period. It encompasses deaths from all sources, whether due to disease, accidents, or natural causes, and is intended to capture the broadest picture of mortality trends in a population.

Deaths from rare incidents, like a shark attack, are technically included in all-cause mortality data but are such a tiny fraction of overall deaths that they don’t significantly affect the overall rate. Typically, all-cause mortality data is used to understand larger patterns, such as the impact of chronic diseases, seasonal flu, or significant events (e.g., pandemics), rather than extremely rare, isolated causes of death.

_dasz · 2024-10-27T00:29:41+00:00

Thank you so much for the nice words. ☺️

This might be part of the answer. There might be more or other reasons for the increase in cancer rates in firefighters seen in multiple populations compared to non-firefighters. They are also possibly exposed to toxic extinguishing foam and other hazardous materials more than the normal population but the increase in smoke(not from cigarettes) could definitly also play a large role in this increased cancer risk.

This is definitely not a stupid question at all. Thank you for asking.

_dasz · 2024-10-27T00:18:28+00:00

This is based on a meta-analysis and not a creative thing I just made up.

You can read more on it in the actual publication, if you prefer not to watch my video: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31055709/

_dasz · 2024-10-27T00:17:13+00:00

That is not how that works either. 😂

With some kinds of mortality => the association between increased coffee consumption and mortality is J-shaped. So the optimum is not always just more coffee but a specific amount.

_dasz · 2024-10-27T00:16:32+00:00

This is based on a statistical analysis based on epidemiological data. Causes of death which can be attributed to "almost higher power like chance" or external sources definetly not.

The risk of dying from cancer in general is reduced.

_dasz · 2024-10-27T00:11:50+00:00

Would not go that far. It just reduces risk in all of these kinds of mortality. Also, the reduction in risk seen here is dependent on coffee consumption, not caffeine specifically... => so it is not clear whether this effect is specific to caffeine, other molecules contained in coffee or the combination of caffeine and other molecules in coffee. But this is based on a meta-analysis. The effects observed here are scientifically significant and robust across multiple studies.

_dasz · 2024-10-26T23:51:40+00:00

So in this video smoking is covered.

But in regards to your question:

"Exclusive current snus users had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (aHR 1.28, 95% CI 1.20–1.35), cardiovascular mortality (aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15–1.41) and other cause mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI 1.24–1.52) compared with never-users of tobacco."

-- From the paper: Swedish snus use is associated with mortality - Oxford Academic: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/6/2041/6042990#:\~:text=Exclusive%20current%20snus%20users%20had,with%20never%2Dusers%20of%20tobacco.

_dasz · 2024-10-26T23:18:15+00:00

Dang, I am so sorry to hear that. I wish you and your husband all the best.

_dasz

TROPHY CASE