If only people were as critical of studies when they like the results.https://twitter.com/bigfatsurprise/status/1031943767522140162 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @MatthewJDalby
It's also not a great criticism, because it applies equally to all groups. If anything, you'd expect it to bias towards the null
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @MatthewJDalby
Whos monitoring that ? Because it’s an interesting point
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @GidMK @MatthewJDalby
Because you are correct , as many people tweet that this study justifies their vegan lifestyle as criticise it for being of poor quality
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wyadvd @MatthewJDalby
Indeed. It is strange to watch both sides of the argument be so painfully wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @MatthewJDalby
I don’t understand why a study of this sort that demonstrates a 0.2% effect is even given the time of day by anyone who understands epidemiology of either persuasion !
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Because people like the results.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @MatthewJDalby @wyadvd
From an epi perspective I'd say it provides an interesting angle for research and some potential guidance for clinicians wrt monitoring but yeh that's about it
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @MatthewJDalby
Such a tiny, tiny effect though that doesn’t even come near to the prior effect of the compliance effect on studies of this type . Why bother even arguing over it ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
As ACM risks go it's not that tiny, but sure it's not a massive issue. Like I said, a good avenue for future research, to identify whether there is a more consistent or specific effect perhaps in a long-term rct or similar
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.