I don't think that that explanation makes sense, or actually rebuts the point. If the true odds ratio of the effect being studied is 1.8, I don't know why Brown

I don't think that that explanation makes sense, or actually rebuts the point. If the true odds ratio of the effect being studied is 1.8, I don't know why Brown expects that a study of a 1.8 would ever produce an odds ratio of 3. That would mean the study was terrible - it got the answer badly wrong! Even with this explanation, Brown is effectively saying that any effect with an odds ratio of less than 3 cannot be studied. I don't think that position makes any sense. And also, an odds ratio of 1.4 means social media makes it 40% more likely one will be depressed. That is a massive effect. I don't understand why people are saying these effects are small.