You've argued - very strongly I might add - to remove industry funded trials from all current and future research. Seems like a poor position to hold if you aren't sure of the outcome
Man, that's very obviously not what I'm arguing at all There's a vast gap between "we should be cautious of industry-funded studies" (my position) and "we should remove all industry funded studies from the evidence-base" (your words)
-
-
So if that is your position, why would you oppose "an analysis to see"? Bc I didn't say it the way you wanted me to? Thats what I mean about "ridiculous conversation"... I'm not writing a grant proposal, I am tweeting.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you spend time studying the ADG, you realise there’s a pattern, not just an article here or there, of using industry-funded articles. If removing these articles = little left, doesn’t that tell you something? How about: there’s a gap, we need to research this for public good?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.