Remember when you called Ludvigsson’s paper p-hacking and demanded retraction? Your evidence was that he had signed the GBD. Are you sure you are not trapped defending a narrative?
There are references. Have a look at the reference numbers and the references at the bottom
-
-
Listing ref at the bottom does not make JS any more scientific/unscientific than GBD. And as we both know, one will find references to support ones' view - still there can be opposite views, even with using the same refs. Science is not black or white (unlike opinions often are)
-
And these references are quite general ones. They not support any claims of unscientificness made by JS. That claim (e.g) is a pure opinion of the authors, not a scientific fact.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.