|
|
|
|
|
|
by fmstack
1693 days ago
|
|
|
I absolutely 100% registered for an account here just so I could respond to this random comment. Friend. “Peer reviewed” doesn’t mean what you think it does. Peer review isn’t something that indicates that a given claim is verified. Instead, it’s something that indicates that a given paper has reached the bare minimum for consideration. It’s generally a red flag when people use “peer reviewed” as a synonym for “true,” particularly when the paper is published in a relatively unknown journal, and an entire parade of red flags when people treat “not peer reviewed” as “almost as good as true.” Regardless of your opinions on the use of various treatments for COVID-19, I strongly recommend that you read this article and take their methodology to heart. “Doing research” doesn’t mean poking around on scholar.google.com and reading extant studies. Sometimes “doing research” means actually running an experiment to verify that the effects claimed in a published paper are replicable. Sometimes “doing research”, as in this case, entails doing statistical analyses of publications looking for tells of shoddy methodology or even straightforward misrepresentation. Note: There’s some really fun tricks that people can use to detect bogus data — for example, when humans attempt to fabricate “random” data, typically the numbers they come up with don’t match an actual random distribution. Anyway, I hope that helps. |
|
|
I see that towards the end of your comment that you're inferring the page has issues with the statistical calculations. Here's the easy solution to get past that and get us talking about what matters: disregard whatever problems you have with the page and look at the actual studies. I think it's absolutely preposterous that people are disregarding life saving research based on which web site serves as a vehicle to get them to it. Read through a few of the studies as I have, and let's have a conversation around the most promising.