I notice that @regnans has gone very quiet since I asked for the evidence @JonInNotts @FriendsOfSciMed @latrobe
-
-
Replying to @david_colquhoun
@david_colquhoun@regnans @JonInNotts@FriendsOfSciMed@latrobe Qn: With only 50% of studies ever published, how is any claim 'scientific'?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@regnans @JonInNotts@FriendsOfSciMed@latrobe trials of supplements are negative. or do you think posyive ones are being hidden?!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @david_colquhoun
@david_colquhoun@regnans @JonInNotts@FriendsOfSciMed@latrobe I don't know what's hidden, any more than you likely do. Undermines all, no?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@regnans @JonInNotts@FriendsOfSciMed@latrobe not unless you ebrace the idea that someone is hiding +ve results. That's ridciulous!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @david_colquhoun
@david_colquhoun@regnans @JonInNotts@FriendsOfSciMed@latrobe More ridculous than hiding -ve ones & claiming what remains is 'scientific'?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@regnans @JonInNotts@FriendsOfSciMed@latrobe sorry, you don't seem to understand, The pro srises when neg tests are hidden1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @david_colquhoun
@david_colquhoun You're right, I don't understand that. The what rises if -ve tests hidden sorry? Does it somehow offset what's hidden?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @david_colquhoun
@C7RKY since almost all the publshed tests ARE negative, I see no problem1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@david_colquhoun Yes, but positive tests are twice as likely to be published as negative ones, I gather? That doesn't concern you? Does me.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.