-
-
Replying to @diviacaroline
Alexandros Marinos Retweeted Alexandros Marinos
I'm starting to realize that folks from the rationality community are still quite resistant to touching grass and reliant on second or third hand takes. Usually that works, but not here.https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1431607634075938823?s=20 …
Alexandros Marinos added,
Alexandros Marinos @alexandrosMThis Health Nerd guy seems to be truly a strange case. Makes loud pretentious claims, then crumbles under pushback. Anyone have the details on what's going on? I'll make this a mini-thread with the various clues I've seen so far in case anyone has more to bring to the table. https://twitter.com/EduEngineer/status/1431518045088923649 …Show this thread2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @alexandrosM @diviacaroline
I'm not saying Carvallo is honest btw. I am saying that there are very many studies, and that people like Health Nerd have been pushing hard on all of them. That should actually increase our estimates that other studies, also positive, are in fact honest and sound.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @alexandrosM @diviacaroline
Health Nerd Retweeted Kyle Sheldrick
So, several odd statements here. We've assessed all the studies equally, and there are several that we've publicly said definitely aren't fraud (for example, Mahmud et al), some of which found benefitshttps://twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1408651561228668931?s=20 …
Health Nerd added,
Kyle Sheldrick @K_SheldrickThis is a tale of two different experiments. The one on the left (Mahmud's RCT) looks like you would expected from an experiment that had been performed as reported, and done well. The one on the right is not a result you would get from an experiment. pic.twitter.com/nfjTSbhKTtShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
When you say that people like me have been "pushing hard on all of them", presumably you mean doing basic checks for potential scientific fraud. Indeed we have - some studies have passed, some have not
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
As to the literature as a whole, it's quite funny to see people saying that potential fraud and retracted papers increases their trust in the remaining studies. I think we should base our trust on data, not insults, but that's just me
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @diviacaroline
You have managed - as usual - to mischaracterize my argument. No news there. I also don't really care about what you consider basic or hard. That's subjective. The question is, every time you investigate a pro-IVM study and find no issues, do you report that?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexandrosM @diviacaroline
Yes of course. People just don't care as much, generally
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The Mahmud study was truly excellent. Dr. Chaccour's research is a delight to read. Dr. Zoni has done some amazing work with his team. Prof Babalola's study has issues, but definitely isn't fraud. I've said this all publicly before
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @diviacaroline
The question is specific: do you publicly acknowledge each study you analyze, and share the results of all your investigations?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
I answered yes. Have a look up the thread. We are putting everything together into a single document because corralling tweets at this point is hard to read
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.
