My opinion is that the evidence is not sufficient to determine a conclusion. Currently, the evidence is consistent with a potential modest benefit as well as modest harm, while the studies arguing for large benefits appear to be incredibly bad or outright fraud
I mean, the blinding such as it was clearly failed. They appear to have almost exclusively tested people in the control group. They then included people who tested NEGATIVE in their primary outcome. They have numeric errors in the paper. It's not one problem, it's endless
-
-
The study was never blinded. I'm looking forward to your analysis on those points you raised. My general appreciation of your work is that you raise methodological doubts but are never really able to explain the results. Fraud is not a word to be lightly thrown around. Careful.
-
The point about low-quality research is that the results such as they are become less trustworthy. Issues such as these could of course explain the results. And I know, I'm using it carefully and specifically although not about Shouman
- 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.
