It is the accepted (but wrong) assumption that the higher the impact factor, the more rigorous the review process, and hence the higher quality the paper. Initially Ioannidis was viciously attacked and everyone said his paper is not peer-reviewed. Now it is. They keep attacking.
-
-
Replying to @DrEliDavid @asafpeer and
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
I have never attacked the person, but the study itself has numerous errorshttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344?s=19 …
Health Nerd added,
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I reviewed your criticism. You did correctly point out several minor errors, but they that don't affect his IFR estimate. Regarding what you refer to as the more major errors which do affect the numbers, I respectfully disagree with your analysis.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DrEliDavid @asafpeer and
The major error is the use of inappropriate estimates, which in many cases is quite clearly obvious. For example, using inpatients receiving dialysis in Chonqing as representative of the entire province results in an estimated 12 million cases as opposed to the official 600
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
In your work you decided arbitrarily what "high quality" previous works are. And concluded that high quality works point to a lower seroprevalence. I didn't find any valid justification for that assertion.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrEliDavid @asafpeer and
We used a validated tool to rate studies, the biggest issue with lower quality studies was selection bias which mostly had the impact of including more people with previous infections
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @DrEliDavid and
To be fair, that is somewhat speculative - we could not ascertain the reasons behind the observation that higher-quality studies appeared to find lower seroprevalence, but it is an educated guess. Another reason is that they tended to correct for test characteristics
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @DrEliDavid and
All that being said, I thought we were discussing the deficiencies of the original paper, which is not actually my work
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Actually we were not even doing that.
@asafpeer compared Ioannidis' work to church and yours to Galileo. These are two good papers using different methodologies. So the catholic and protestant churches, if we have to use that analogy :)3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrEliDavid @asafpeer and
Lol I'm definitely not Galileo! I think we can all agree on that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Maybe more like Masorti and Reform also 
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.