That is highly inaccurate. Multiple weak indications can definitely result in a strong conclusion if they each assess different aspects of the question, are not filtered, and come from independent sources.
-
-
Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim
If you run dozens of studies that are all flawed, most of them in the same ways, then you haven't gotten any closer to an answer to your original question. It's a pretty foundational fact of research
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim
If the flaws are uncorrelated then the probability that all the results are due to flaws approach zero as you add studies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim
That's simply not true, and a misunderstanding of how scientific evidence works. I'd suggest reading the Cochrane handbook to get a better handle on evidence appraisal (it is, unfortunately, very dense)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim
I guess the point where someone on the Internet tries to educate me about my area of expertise is where I bow out, and offer you to back your confidence with actions: https://blog.rootclaim.com/treating-covid-19-with-vitamin-d-100000-challenge/ … Good night sir.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim
Lol. Even if I had $100,000 to throw away, it seems like a garish publicity stunt to me. If you want to actually do some good, put the money towards a study on Vitamin D and I'll happily throw in my consulting services for free
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim
These are not mutually exclusive. I'm also funding a clinical trial.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim
That's great! Probably a much more useful intervention than a bet that won't be resolved until it doesn't really matter anyway (and would probably just result in a legal battle due to the vague wording)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @Rootclaim
The purpose of the bet is not to make a profit but to accelerate rational discussion. People become much more critical when they risk something.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @saarwilf @Rootclaim
Nah, it's just a pointless dichotomization. I wouldn't take the bet because the evidence ISN'T THERE - I'm not saying vit D is useless, but that we have no idea if it works or not. Also, most of the experts are (like me) unable to easily proffer $100,000 in assets for silly bets
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If nothing else, the vague wording makes it almost certain that the bet would come down to a legal battle. There will undoubtedly be dozens or 100s of studies in 2022 looking at the question - which ones count? What does the bit about general acceptance actually mean? etc etc
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.