where are the mods wrote:
Lead Foil Hat XX wrote:
Wait, so now scientific studies are misinformation if you do not like what they say? Sheesh, some new world we live in. PS, just because CNN tries to discredit some scientists does not mean they are discredited.
It’s not peer reviewed and there’s so many holes in the methods. Additionally, the OP’s conclusion contradicts what the study ultimately finds. You’re being obtuse about this.
Regarding the methods, this article does employ a technique which while not outright disqualifying is my biggest personal pet peeve. I hate it when data is impoverished unnecessarily. Things like taking a continuous variable and making it binary drive me nuts. I particularly hate it when cutoffs are used without there being widespread agreement on where that cutoff should be. Those techniques are used in this article. I will read it more deeply, but keep that in mind while reading it.
I also agree with the previously made points that this article is still a pre-print and that any study must be viewed within the context of existing studies of the subject.