Mmm, an interesting Author Reply by the Coca-Cola sponsored paper that suggests that the rise in obesity might not be related to sugary drinks, but because women sit in front of a screen too much and don't vacuum enough. https://pubpeer.com/publications/F2B6D329A4B0D16909540298E6B4BC#2 …
-
Show this thread
-
Elisabeth Bik Retweeted Cecile Janssens
I wrote some concerns about the paper inspired by
@cecilejanssens' thread here:https://twitter.com/cecilejanssens/status/1217232909914058753 …Elisabeth Bik added,
Cecile Janssens @cecilejanssensToday, we had our first class of "Critical Thinking: Exploring the Science behind the News". This is why our class matters. We opened with this jaw-dropping example. Without reading further: how did the researchers study this? What is the science behind the news? 1/ (corrected) pic.twitter.com/Ud32VVsBOBShow this thread1 reply 4 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
But the authors reply that "your comments about alleged conflicts of interest and sexism are irrelevant to the rigor and validity of our results and conclusions"
1 reply 1 retweet 28 likesShow this thread -
Mmmm. "comments about alleged conflicts and biases are simply unscientific and irrelevant because they do not critique the methods, results, or conclusions."
3 replies 3 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Of course, "Cancel Culture" is being added. It is such a sexy buzzword, meant to silence any criticism. And my concerns are labeled an "ad hominem" attack, although I did not target the authors, just the authors' conflicts of interest.
1 reply 3 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the authors' reply. Am I in the wrong here? Happy to learn and do better if I crossed a line.
20 replies 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest @cecilejanssens
Their comment about examining differences between "employed" and "non-employed" women is a red herring. Your comment was based on the amount of energy expended at work, those two buckets are far too broad to examine this imo
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Arguing that there is a lack of population-level data on energy so we can safely ignore it as a confounder is just ridiculous, no idea where they got that idea from
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
And, above all, it's not an ad hominem to point out CoIs, they're being very defensive about something that should presumably be a boring admission
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
Also, of course, there's a very strong evidence-base demonstrating that industry funding is likely to lead to pro-industry conclusionshttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/195843 …
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.