Please don’t change the meaning of my quote. I said exactly and meant it that you need to understand R (or it’s equivalent) to understand manipulation of raw data in databases like those concerning nutrition and biomarkers and other disease metrics like end points related to DM. For example, R is how we evaluated vast data including years of labs, imaging, and other metrics in a piece going into JAMA right now, on which I am an author and consulting partner. It would be inappropriate to say more.
So, I feel marginally qualified to say the figures and data, in the absence of R, would not make sense to anybody but trained professionals. The data is from a huge database where hundreds of factoids about people with DM reach various endpoints. BTW, I am not the lab chief.
Yes, I tend to role my eyes when people outside of work ask for data proof unless it’s at a lab meeting or conference, or rounds or grand rounds or whatever, where I have some hint, just maybe, that somebody asking has the faintest idea what to do with it. Prove the earth is flat. Oh yep, I need to see it in a journal, and not just any journal but a peer-reviewed one. . . Oh yes, got me there (insert ching sound of bell ringing.)
I defer to read your whole response to me now but thank you for it. It’s 5 in the morning and I am listening to Mahlers lovely Das Lied von der Erde to put something nice into my head insofar as my complaints department is closed.
The vegan topic often gets me going. I am not going to talk more about it here. I stipulate that most vegans (like me) annoy everyone and never shut up about it either. The typical routine for me has been the most ill-informed people on it f2f challenging the existance of the science because she doesn’t know it’s there, as if I should prove any aspect to said individual or make a list of citations. If one wishes to get familiar, help yourself so to do.
Oh, and I love when they mention “peer-reviewed material” without knowing that this is exactly what I do. Here’s a depressing news flash: In some fields a big part of what’s in print in peer-rev j’s is useless junk that cannot be replicated, is artifactual, has methodological problems, isn’t correct results, and so on. . . You want a citation for that too, because it exists may be even worse than I stated in certain fields.
Sure, I might be confused. That’s good to point out. I’ll admit it. Thank you. Much appreciated.