The poor methodological strength underlying all those HCQ, IVM, and Vit-D papers (e.g. those from Raoult) is a huge problem. A much bigger problem: they're about average.
-
-
Even if we raise methodological standards, it won’t fix the political forces that actively promote pseudoscience as a cheaper alternative to doing the right things
-
It will be far easier to do so if we as a field are more credible and deserving of that credibility.
- Show replies
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.