3 ms·

The study's author is a well-known esoteric loonie. You are better of not trusting that study. Context in German: https://www.psiram.com/de/index.php/Cornelia_W

• strogonoff 1y ago
  Interesting, thanks for context. Then, was this particular paper not peer reviewed or did it use suspect methodology?
  • pfdietz 1y ago
    Peer review doesn't guarantee much of anything, unfortunately.
  • CamperBob2 1y ago
    PubMed is highly problematic in that regard. It means basically nothing in terms of quality or quantity of peer review, but the "nih.gov" part of the URL automatically lends an air of real authority to any link that contains it. I don't know what you have to do to get a link on PubMed, but it definitely isn't much.
    • strogonoff 1y ago
      This is interesting (and unfortunate). It boggles my mind how academia makes it possible to publish (and not have to retract) a paper based around facts that are simply made up[0], while some bright and capable people I know don’t have ways to publish (unless, I suppose, they pay to some lesser pay-to-play journals) because they did not choose to be in academia. [0] Although I have not seen anyone in this thread tell me that this paper is false—it was mostly appeal to author’s preexisting reputation—I’m taking it at face value.