Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti...
by driverdan on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @10:14AM
(#27528709)
What's your point? When you make a medical decision it should be based on the best research done to date. Just because existing research doesn't mean something isn't true isn't a reason to do it.
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti...
by passivate on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @06:35PM
(#27522474)
> And consider that estimates are as high as 50% of scientific papers’ results are false (especially in bio).
Source?
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti...
by nradov on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @10:13PM
(#27524128)
Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti...
by passivate on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @10:24PM
(#27524188)
Where is the 50% number? Or are you linking to a random paper? (i.e. not the source for the claim)
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti...
by nradov on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @10:37PM
(#27524263)
Did you even read the paper? "Most" is >50%.
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti...
by passivate on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @12:27PM
(#27530357)
Nope. You don't invent numbers like that. A claim that includes a specific number needs an actual citation which includes the number.
"Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields" is a ridiculous claim. I don't know a single scientist who believes that. How many scientists have you spoken to in the bio field?
Theres no scientific basis for anything until a proper study is done. Doesn't mean it isn't true. And consider that estimates are as high as 50% of scientific papers’ results are false (especially in bio).
N.B.1: I'm a scientist in a government lab
N.B. 2: I’m not impugning science, just fellow scientists.