That also does not make the claim you are making. You might want to read the paper more carefully. But as I said, the criticism doesn't even make much sense for the original paper and has no impact whatsoever on the newer one
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lol I'm not doing your work for you. You can't just apply weird 20-year old arguments OF ANOTHER STUDY to a new one, especially when you don't understand the objections in the first place. If you want the study, check sci-hub
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
That's what sci-hub is for. Google it Also, presumably this means that you're applying nonsense criticisms TO A PAPER YOU HAVE NOT EVEN READ which is, uh, an interesting way to try your hand at science
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lol. As I said, you can do your own work. And if you didn't learn that applying objections raised 20 years ago about a different paper to a new study with a different design is total nonsense in your MPH, you should ask for your money back
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lol, first MPH I've met who doesn't know how to access research


0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Lol not even close. You're just the only one I know who can't find studies themselves (even when they're freely available online
)
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.