4 ms·

Please heed this warning from the linked thread: > Comments like this are gonna quickly turn this place into just another /r/science, where people of no partic

Please heed this warning from the linked thread: > Comments like this are gonna quickly turn this place into just another /r/science, where people of no particular qualification chime in and try to make themselves feel smart by contradicting a peer reviewed study without taking the actual effort needed to properly question a peer reviewed study, especially one in as prestigious a journal as the Lancet. Thank you. Nobody’s interested in your level of incredulity, however you italicize it.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
>especially one in as prestigious a journal as the Lancet While I agree in principle, the Lancet aren't immune to crummy papers (indeed, no-one is). Even just this year, they published that super-dodgy Surgisphere paper that turned out to be completely irreproducible (to put it kindly). Scientific papers are written by people, and the peers of people who (for example) don't really understand statistics are likely to also not understand statistics, so while peer review is definitely helpful, one should always read scientific papers sceptically. That being said, low-effort dismissals based on anecdotes are much, much worse than the average scientific paper.