Reasons why Jakob Ingebrigtsen is drug-free

I am welcome to what?

Whatever these other researchers say depends on the context of the citing study, which you didn't give (and I don't find particularly relevant). But surely none of these researchers from 127 citing papers suggest that 43.6% (WCA) or 57% (PAG) is something different than the authors of the original paper -- who said these basic results are subject to the effects from at least 9 possible forms of non-compliance, with 11 unknowns, and who performed a response time analysis and an exercise of deleting hasty responses argued to contain a lot of "automatic yes" responses, based on empirical measurements and observations, continuing deletions until the decrease in prevalence estimates stabilized, reducing their preliminary estimate by a massive 12.2 percentage points.

I have read it and I have learned that your posts are sheer repetition. And completely distorting of what it says.

No need to announce your entrance like that. We all know your IQ level.

Not buying it. Your posts demonstrate you surely have not read the paper, and you surely don't read my posts. If you had, and you understood what you read, you would see that, contrary to unsupported allegations of distortion, cherry-picking, and propaganda, we both say that the initial survey result is subject to no less than 9 theoretical models of "Distortion" due to the effects of survey non-compliance, with 11 unknowns identified, and no objective guidance to resolving these unknowns. And independent of these theoretical models with all their built-in unknowns, the authors performed a "Primary Analysis" exercise to arrive at a more conservative "lower bound" estimate -- an estimate still subject to the same 9 theoretical models of distortion with 11 unknowns.

This is hardly a solid foundation for a reliable prevalence estimate.

You walk into it every time.

I have read it - it was published years ago - and agree with the poster above who has repeatedly shown the farcically dishonest nature of your interpretation against peer responses. The rambling nature of your comments most closely resemble a Trump rally, not intellectual analysis.

Here you go 🍼

Still not convinced. It's simply not your style to read and understand details. It's more your style to pretend to know things, or pretend to have read, and understood, things, and insult others who call you out when you demonstrate your inability or ignorance. If there are too many words above your ceiling of complexity, you uncleverly dismiss it as "flannel", "waffle", or "word salad", or try to make some kind of weird analogy with mountains, or oceans, or the prohibition.

It's notable that you don't say you agree with the researchers themselves. Having extensively checked the math and logic, I tend to agree with the extensive limitations discussed by the researchers, who produced no less than 9 models, with 11 unknowns, the details of which can be found in the Appendix, under a section entitled "Effects of Various Possible Forms of Noncompliance by Survey Respondents". And I support the parallel effort to reduce the empirically observed significant over-estimation predicted by hasty responses, but I question whether they've gone far enough before arriving at their lower bound estimate, which is still subject to these same 9 models with 11 unknowns.

Because I am able to think in a way you don't I can make a point with a few words instead of the torrent of doggerel that is your norm, and I can also understand complexity and reduce it to its essentials. I was professionally trained to do so. It is obvious that you weren't.

It is further inevitable that to engage in discussion on your terms is to concede entirely to your extremely distorted perceptions; the price of disappearing down your rabbit-hole. The tedium involved is every deterrent. No one gains, except you. Truth will never be found there. You are a creature that could exist nowhere else but on sites such as these.

Still not convinced.

Simple points are not necessarily correct, especially when they are baseless. Quite often the devil is in the details.

I was professionally trained in math and am familiar with modeling problems with many equations and many unknowns. That's how I know these estimates are not reliable. There are too many unknowns that simply cannot be wished away by preconceived notions of plausibility and likelihoods, nor by personal insults or weird analogies.

You aren't communicating with maths equations here but in English. Therein lies your problem. Furthermore, as another commentator has made palpably clear, your "maths" are entirely selective.

You have a problem with numbers. Therein lies your problem.

Not quite true. "43.6%" and "30%" are the numerical results of mathematical equations. They are numbers, not words. Therein lies your problem.

If by "entirely selective", you mean I selected the "entire" paper including its appendix, then I would agree.

To understand the paper requires first reading it, and then at least a basic understanding of the mathematical models that produced the numbers, and then the discussion, in words, in order to put everything in a correct, undistorted, perspective.

You are never communicating with others because you ignore any arguments which question your view. Therein lies your problem.

You've carved yourself out a role here as rekrunner's mini-Me, squeaking meaninglessly in affirmation of the board's resident doping-denier.

What you mean by "ignoring others' arguments" is not agreeing with them or even conceding their arguments have any relevance. None of you can cope with being differed with.

Despite the primacy you attach to mathematics the virtual entirety of your comments about it require the use of English - so language not mathematics is the vital tool of communication about the study - or, in your case, miscommunication.

This study has been out for a decade. And here you are, relentlessly still trying to reinterpret it so it doesn't say what it clearly says. To debate with you about its contents is to concede you have an argument. You don't. So debate is not worth the time or effort. You are a fanatical bore.

I have often disagreed with rekrunner. You? You have been squeaking meaninglessly an average of 100 times a month. Keep it going!