3 ms·
The author of this work addressed the notion that patients were matched and the methods were described incorrectly, even in that situation the distribution of p
by fieldcny 5y ago
The author of this work addressed the notion that patients were matched and the methods were described incorrectly, even in that situation the distribution of p values is so highly unlikely that it’s most likely fraud.
Sloppy research methods leading to bogus results are can be construed as fraud, particularly if you don’t know the motivation for the lack of care.
A diligent researcher might take these results which were “incredible” and attempt to replicate them before publishing.
- roenxi 5y agoSheldrick has just caused massive reputational damage, got thousands of strangers reading & discussing how Marik's work looks like fraud (despite few of us actually being qualified to assess its merits) & is posing a serious professional attack to Marik's wellbeing. It is unlikely but in the realm of possibility that someone would commit suicide or get some sort of trauma from this sort of attention. He's doing that based on an interpretation of some study, which I suspect is approximately a 20 page document. Now on the one hand, he is probably right. On the other hand, this is a very brave approach - the damage and the care taken aren't in good proportion here. This sort of thing is easy to get wrong. He should have talked to the paper's authors first.
- gzer0 5y ago> He should have talked to the paper's authors first. Sheldrick did exactly that. It is the first line of the article. "Below is an email I have sent to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, the editor of CHEST Journal, and prof Paul E Marik"
- sdoering 5y agoPeople publishing a study that is so blatantly against everything that is statistically likely should be called out. The author published an email he also - before publication - sent to the people involved. Science happens in public for a reason. The reason is that others should be able to check the results being published. Authors should therefore be very aware of the fact, that their results might come under scrutiny. If one were to publish claims that look so unlikely based on valid scientific methods they should at least address the unlikeliness of the results and provide a rationale why this is still valid, even if it looks unlikely. That didn't happen - and so they get called out. The extreme unlikeliness is what validates the claim of this being fraudulent data. Now it is on the original study`s authors to react to that public answer to their publication.
- roenxi 5y agoI am guided by the "I have not requested access to the raw data or contacted the authors for explanation as the case is audacious no other explanation is possible." comment in the letter.
- ImaCake 5y agoI am guided by the irrefutable mathematics which has more certainty than any of the actual prose that explains it.