11/n (Note - this, too is misleading. The NNTV as time trends towards infinity in this population is high because they were older and sicker than the total population. For example, the NNTV for 10-year-olds will be 1,000 times higher than that for 60-year-olds)
-
-
22/n Also worth pointing out that two members of the editorial board of the journal have resigned so far because of this terrible studyhttps://twitter.com/ProfKatieEwer/status/1409125241142513670?s=20 …
Show this thread -
23/n also as a couple of people have pointed out, this tweet is incorrect. I mixed up the ARR of disease prevention with death, in actuality the ARR would approach the death rate in the population x 0.84 - in most places this would be about 1 per 100/200https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1409293104063029252?s=19 …
Show this thread -
24/n Oh, and because it always comes up in these discussions, I've never been paid a cent by any pharmaceutical company, all of my funding is through the Australian state and federal governments, the only additional income I get is from writing locked posts on Medium
Show this thread -
25/n There is now an expression of concern published by the journal about the paperhttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/705 …
Show this thread -
26/n An interesting point about this paper is that it's actually a perfect example of how peer-review can fail. The people who reviewed the article assumed that the stats and methodology were reasonable, and based on that assumption recommended that it be published
Show this thread -
27/n This is a prime example of what
@jamesheathers and I wrote about recently - the study got through peer review, may be retracted, but the damage has already very much been donehttps://www.statnews.com/2021/06/08/scientific-publishing-new-weapon-for-the-next-crisis-the-rapid-correction/ …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
another example of the mdpi "review" process
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Mdpi at its best. Reviewed once for one of their better journals. They basically ignored 50% of my criticism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Line 1, 14, and throughout: capitalize “COVID-19”” Thanks reviewer one … I can see you have the right priorities here …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A good example of why “peer review” isn’t the mark of quality it’s perceived to be. These comments are basically worthless. Did they even read the manuscript?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.