Consult Table 1 for a huge list of studies on this matter.

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/20/3/459/htm

TNF-α serum concentrations are used to track inflammation.

Rightmost column indicates whether a study found link between sleep apnea and inflammation.

"Effect of Tx" column indicates whether a study checked for effect of sleep apnea treatment on inflammation, and if it did, what was the result.

Sure is.

> Conflict of interest statement

> Robert Kaufmann has served as a consultant for Shaman Botanicals, LLC, and Validcare, LLC, and as a speaker for Shaman Botanicals, LLC. Amber Harris Bozer, Amanda Kube, and Keith Aqua have no conflicts of interest to declare.

> Grant support

> Funding and products for this project were provided by Asterra Labs, Care by Design, CBDistillery, CBD American Shaman, Cannacraft, Charlotte’s Web, Columbia Care, Garden of Life, Global Widget, HempFusion, Impact Naturals, Kannaway, Kazmira, Medterra CBD, Oncuity LLC, SunMed CBD, and Tauriga Sciences.

How can I view the actual article?

The webpage for Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids says they are Open Access, but I can't find the full paper anywhere.

I agree with all this.

I guess when I think of science, I think of a machine that sucks up judgments from biased humans, and somehow spits out results that converge on the truth. Of course, this convergence happens faster when the humans do their best to be less biased in advance. And the convergence can be reversed if the biased humans are bad enough.

So I'm willing to tolerate a lot of trash criticism if it means that a little good criticism also gets through. Maybe in the face of the current political environment, I should be less tolerant of trash criticism; not sure.

Not sure what you mean. If I am to take you literally, what I'm hearing is, "/r/science would be a better subreddit if all critical comments were deleted."

I don't believe this is what you meant, but perhaps you could clarify?

When I use the word "accusation," I mean, "A claim that someone has done something wrong." This could be an accusation of malicious fraud; it could also be an accusation that someone has mistakenly used an inappropriate statistical test.

Is there a particular class of accusations that you think are harmful? Perhaps your definition of "accusation" is different from mine?

Would be interested to hear.

Author Jordan Batchelor:

> Analysis of keywords identified several sources of negative attitudes, such as claims that scientists can be corruptible, poor communicators, and misleading. Research methodologies were negatively evaluated on the basis of small sample sizes. Other commenters negatively evaluated social science research, especially psychology, as being pseudoscientific, and several commenters described science journalism as untrustworthy or sensationalized.

/u/dumbnezero:

> And the mods should've removed all of those. Press that Nuke button, mods.

I am not so certain.

• "Corruptible": Conflict of interest is relevant and should be pointed out.
• "Poor communicators": This accusation can be a jumping-off point for a commenter to clarify the authors' intent.
• "Misleading": Always good to point out when an author makes a claim that is not supported by their own data.
• "Small sample sizes": This is the one where I most agree with Batchelor. Commenters often slam down this criticism without thinking about its relevance. Still, scientists often make the opposite mistake of overvaluing statistical significance.
• "Negatively evaluated social science": Many articles that get posted here under the social science tag are closer to political commentary than social science.
• "Described science journalism as untrustworthy or sensationalized": This is straightforwardly true, though. The majority of the time I read science journalism, and then go on to read the actual research paper, the science journalism article makes stronger claims than the research paper itself.

No doubt, there are good and bad ways to comment on these problems. I'd like to see what words and phrases Batchelor actually looked for in the corpus, and I'd like some examples of what Batchelor considers to be unreasonable comments. I can't access the actual article, though. My normal search methods failed. And my, ahem, other methods failed as well.

> Skeptical redditors, like me, respond

Yep. Especially on a science subreddit, the majority of comments should be critical.

If you go in person to a conference, or a paper presentation, the majority of questions will be critical. Not attacking, but questions that probe for weaknesses in the experimental design. This is not "anti-science sentiment." This is science itself.

On Reddit, the average level of expertise is lower than at a conference. So, a higher proportion of the criticisms will be spurious. But we should still expect mostly critical comments.

11 volunteers were recruited for a third arm of the trial. Crying was induced by instructing participants to watch a movie clip from their choice of "Titanic," "Grave of the Fireflies," or "Up." Fat metabolism was increased at suggestive but sub-significant levels. Further research is needed to determine whether this effect can be reproduced.