Right now the @WHO is encouraging developing nations to “get some NFGs” ....
Here in Australia, articles like yours are defending status quo and imply - if you criticize, it’s bc you can’t science.
It shuts down debate - and serious and urgent debate
I mean, you can read and interrogate the methods quite easily they're in the NHMRC review document. I'd say they were pretty solid as far as systematic reviews go, the NHMRC tends to be good with this sort of thing
-
-
I've read them, and I think I just listed a number of flaws in the methodology, and the human elements of the review and the oversight committee. The continued appeal to authority - just bc "uni" or "science" or "professional label" does NOT make one infallible
-
Yes, I read the methods and there were obvious flaws - like there are for any other publication or review. You know more about the internal politics/history that shaped the document, but I was concerned just based on methods. "NHMRC tends to be good" isn't good enough for me.
- 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.
