[fqye]

I admit that I stopped reading further when I saw that line.

Still in the summary:

These two apparently disparate topics converge in a unique case: the intimate involvement of transplant surgeons in China in the execution of prisoners via the procurement of organs. We use computational text analysis to conduct a forensic review of 2838 papers drawn from a dataset of 124 770 Chinese-language transplant publications.

We find evidence in 71 of these reports, spread nationwide, that brain death could not have properly been declared. In these cases, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the proximate cause of the donor's death. Because these organ donors could only have been prisoners, our findings strongly suggest that physicians in the People's Republic of China have participated in executions by organ removal.

--

It is 71 reports out of 2838 reports. And the reports themselves could have reliability issues.

And the judgement of brain death has always been controversial. 71 out of 2838 is just 2.5% that is subject to question.

[detaro]

So now your complaint is that the summary is transparent about the numbers? That the paper exists at all? ...?

Also, ironic how you break the guidelines by "And did you read the report?" and then admit you didn't read it yourself.

[fqye]

No. My complaint is that the study method is fundamentally unreliable. And if we accept that the reports are reliable, and analysis is reliable, 2.5% of all brain dead reports are questionable don't sound suspicious at all.