I’m not very knowledgeable about this, but I was wondering if MIT (professor?) co-authorship precludes papers from coming to the wrong conclusions? Or is it we’ll know that when a co-author is from MIT that the paper is as rigorous and objective as possible?

I am just comparing the potential veracity of a peer reviewed article in Nature of two MIT authors and one emergency physician from Ben Gurion University with a one line dismissal and a newspaper link. Which one is "we'll [sic] known" to be more plausible?

This is not published in Nature. Scientific reports is much less prestigious and selective.

I said possibly less reliable because of some interesting data mismatches, not dismissing it. considering then other comments addressing the flaws in their stats, it seems quite wrong. I have a Masters degree from UBC and work as a data scientist, not that actually matters…

Can you point to the specific error in the paper? I have a PhD from MIT, but I am not sure why "UBC" is relevant to the paper in question.

I cannot, it is not my area of expertise. For the same reason "MIT" is relevant.

Ok I understand

Please follow HN guidelines when responding, you could have simply stated, "Looking at figure 1b, it seems like there was time delay between the first dose and the increase in rates".

This is a wrong venue to condescendingly teach other people how to write comments. The goal of this forum is to contribute information or insights. If you you think I violated HN guidelines, please downvote and report to dang.

Respectfully, it is exactly the right venue? I sorta thought that was the point here. And sure, done.