-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Oh, something went REALLY squirly here. What in seven hells happened?? This is *amazingly* sloppy.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jamesheathers @GidMK
THEY SOMEHOW NEVER DOpic.twitter.com/WECUudrEzQ
1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jamesheathers
ALL OUR WORK WAS WRONG AND BAD BUT OUR CONCLUSIONS ARE FINE
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
This is the worst kind of overreach - bizarrely sloppy and with immediate policy implications??? NOT OK. Most sloppy researchers have the decency to be somewhat obscure. If you can't collate numbers correctly, who knows what other gremlins are hiding?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @jamesheathers
I would love for you to have it. It needs a professional data thug methinks
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jamesheathers
Also, did I mention that this is the paper that threw 50 uncontrolled t-tests at weirdly manipulated tertiles that were reported as <0.05 but on further analysis were almost certainly 0.051-2?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I am not sure. @Karkazis might know?
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @jamesheathers
I don't have it but see here for more: http://leastthing.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-call-for-bermon-and-garnier-2017-to.html …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.