They derive a coefficient from the literature
For this they find...
TWO papers:
1. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.14348 …
2. http://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00608 …
none of which is answering the question directly and(!)
even better
the two contradict each other
tweet
13/https://twitter.com/aaronyelowitz/status/1289194658963185664 …
-
Show this thread
-
Okaaaay Two papers. One says, no effect – relative risk of 1. The other says a large effect – RR 2.85. What do we do? Of course, you guessed right AVERAGE
14/pic.twitter.com/faaMZo2UUz
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
This was just one of the unanswered critical issues that we outlined w/
@GidMK in our larger format critique. For several more please have a look at the full thing. But even this text is not exhaustive, e.g.@gabegabeyeah has something to add
15/https://osf.io/9yqxw 1 reply 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
Now, I have no more questions to the authors of the paper. Their response to our critique just shows that they are not scientists, i.e. they are genuinely not interested in the truth, they don't care about the answers to the questions of their research. 16/
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
All they care about is the CV and how not to have a retraction in it. The so called revision of the paper is a pathetic cherry-picking attempt to cover up the big fiasco The only honest and professional way to resolve the case is a retraction
@RetractionWatch 17/1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
But I do have questions to the editors of
@JAMA_current And yes, not just@JAMANetworkOpen. Our critical comment was handled by Dr. Phil Fontanarosa, the Executive Editor of JAMA All his emails cc'ed Dr. Annette Flanagin@AFlanagin and Dr. Michael Berkwits 18/2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Ilya Kashnitsky Retweeted Davene R. Wright, PhD
I want to ask you dear editors of
@JAMA_current: How is all this possible? Do you have no reputation to maintain? Can't you be professional dealing w/ a fellow's paper? Did you even have a look at the revised paper?
whisper: it's just hilarious
19/https://twitter.com/WrightCensored/status/1348632048592953345 …Ilya Kashnitsky added,
Davene R. Wright, PhD @WrightCensoredAnd a genuine question. When a paper is corrected due to post-publication peer review, does the corrected manuscript have to be re-reviewed by the reviewers who missed these errors in the first place. New reviewers? Or do the authors get to make whatever claims they want? (4/x)Show this thread1 reply 1 retweet 11 likesShow this thread -
The way you published this correction is even spookier than the initial publication. Retract this joke of a paper. That is the only way back to decency. 20/ FIN
2 replies 2 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Ilya Kashnitsky Retweeted Health Nerd
One more: feel the absurdity of the central assumption in the paper w/
@GidMK
brilliant!
and exactly the same point in a private chat outlined @jm_aburto that's a good rule of thumb – try to get a sense/feeling of the quantities quoted in papers
https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1348777628812021761 …Ilya Kashnitsky added,
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
And sick days! I reckon that sick days for school students are causing at least a 15% increased risk of death! Should cut them immediately, students just come in ill
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.