3 ms·
> That's one of several critiques of the study; others include[] . . . that several of the study authors have either conflicts, bad reputations, or both. That
by torstenvl 5y ago
> That's one of several critiques of the study; others include[] . . . that several of the study authors have either conflicts, bad reputations, or both.
That is not a valid critique of the study. It is a potentially valid reason to adjust your Bayesian priors applicable before reading the study, but is utterly nobprobative as to whether the science is sound.
- FabHK 5y agoAgreed. When Pfizer studies the effectiveness of their vaccine, they also have conflicts. That doesn't impugn the results of the study, if it's well done.
- avs733 5y agoNo, it is a critique. When Pfizer does it it is a critique as well. The question is how much of a critique. In general… If you are dishonest about your conflict, you hide it, don’t do anything to control for it then having a conflict is a bigger critique. If you are transparent about your conflict, honest about what it is, and take measures to control for it or add extra steps to analysis to prevent potential bias - then a conflict is a less strong critique of the study. Critique in scientific research isn’t a binary. It isn’t “there’s one critique and it’s valid or not and if it’s valid the study is bad”. There can be critiques of ANY study. No study is perfect. But the types and the details of the critiques matter collectively to make the study better or worse. Collectively, this study falls to the worse end. It’s not just the conflict of interest it’s the conflict of interest + the study design. The critiques of the study design are that this study is design almost exactly the way you would if you wanted to increase the appearance of effectiveness of this treatment.