Well then maybe we should take a second look at that uncontrolled, non-blinded, statistically problematic, weirdly done, fairly obviously biased, definitely not in any way proof of ketosis virta study that you're taking as absolute positive proof that ketosis is effective 
I think the 55k was for the number of abstracts reviewed, not the number of studies included in the final document
-
-
The statement being bandied around was "Best available scientific evidence based on over 55k scientific papers".... It is only those of us who have done SR+MA who might realise the 55k refers to the "first pass lit search"...but for most people, it sounds legit and robust?
-
So - as a public statement, and was "popped in" almost every DAA media release leading up to and following the GL release - so we were all saying it without thinking. It is a "misrepresentation", a "headline" the very thing you rally against in your blogs?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
May not even been abstracts reviewed, may just have been titles. Have you tried replicating the search strategy?
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.
