Asklemmy

43818 readers

1707 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

120

What are your 'name brand only' items? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

216 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What do you refuse to get generic versions of?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Your linked study is done with 212 subjects. 212!

With a population that small, you can have any conclusion you'd like. There are billions of people who use bidet showers daily in the world, your study has 212!

If you believe in the scientific method, you should know that a study has to be verified by many independent studies with big enough data samples before it is accepted as fact. You must surely know that there are studies that conclude that the climate change is a hoax. But the overwhelmingly majority makes these handful outliers or flawed studies.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sigh, I was wondering if this particular misunderstanding of statistics had migrated from reddit to here.

No, you cannot dismiss a study because it "only" has 212 people. 200 people is enough to get an 85% confidence level.

On top of that, it is hardly the only study showing vaginal microflora alteration in bidet users:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21058441/

Normal microflora (Lactobacillus species) was not present in 42.86% of bidet toilet users, compared to 8.77% of non-users. Fecal bacteria were detected in 50 of the 268 cases (18.66%), 46 cases in users (92%) and only 4 cases in non-users (8%). Contamination by other pathogens was 4 to 6 times higher in users than in non-users.

I get there is a cult of bidet users who will hear no slander of them, but it's not going to make me spray water from my toilet seat and around my vulva and potentially into my vagina. You are not changing my mind on this and I invite you to read more about sample sizes if you want to do something productive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6970301/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your first study has even used women who had admitted to the hospital and therefore used the shared hospital toilet bidets. I think this fact alone would make it enough to disqualify it.

Apart from hospital bidet being a one extra germ filled surface the patient touches, it raises the following questions. Was there a problem with the brand of bidet used in the hospital that might cause more of an uncontrolled spray? Did the particular toilet bowl shape contribute to the result? Non of these stays the same within the general population and any outliers would be cancelled out in a huge dataset.